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 .
Responsive to communication filed on 5 Jun 2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings dated 5 Jun 2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 5 Jun 2023 has been reviewed. It contains 109 words, 7 lines, and no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the image data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the image data” refers to the “ground truth data” or “environmental data” of claim 1. For purposes of examination, examiner will read “the image data” as the environmental data of claim 1.
Claims 8-13 are directly dependent on claim 7 and are, thus, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 13 also recites the limitation “the vehicle systems”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim structure. It is unclear if the vehicle systems are new limitations or if they are supposed to be referencing the vehicle systems of claim 12. The examiner will read that claim 13 should be dependent on claim 12 (which claims “at least one vehicle systems”) instead of claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the server cloud" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 17 recites “a server”, it is unclear whether “the server cloud” is connected to the server of claim 17 or an entirely different server. For purposes of examination, examiner will read “the server cloud” as a data cloud connected to the server of claim 17.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “further comprising transmitted the liquid obstacle to at least one non-vehicle third party”. This limitation is unclear in the context of the rest of the claim. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim can be read as physically transporting a liquid obstacle to a third party. For purposes of examination, examiner will read this language as “further comprising transmitting data of the liquid obstacle to at least one non-vehicle third party”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility.
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within
the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong One - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an
abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2A Prong Two - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step
2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. This evaluation considers any additional elements in the claim beyond any recited judicial
exceptions.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a
practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further
analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More. This evaluation is to evaluate if the additional elements of
the claim provide an inventive concept.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim
from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed
in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant
Extra-Solution Activities are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -
understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
The additional elements are evaluated to determine if any additional element or combination of
elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply
append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a
high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claims 1-13
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-13 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“generating an initial aquaplaning model based on the ground truth data;” This limitation can be reasonably read to entail a human creating a model based on gathered data. Even if this step was performed on a computer, the courts have ruled that used of a generic computer does not exclude a limitation from being a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(C)). This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“determining whether the subsequent environment data indicates a liquid obstacle;” This limitation can be reasonably read to entail a human determining whether gathered data indicates a liquid obstacle. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“validating the aquaplaning model based on a predefined accuracy threshold.” This limitation can be reasonably read to entail a human determining whether a model is deemed accurate based on gathered data and a threshold value. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 1 additionally recites the limitations:
“receiving ground truth data from at least one vehicle sensor concerning detected liquid obstacles on a physical roadway by performing an initial vehicle operation over the physical roadway;” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as it is mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“receiving subsequent environment data from the at least one vehicle sensor;” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as it is mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“applying supervised training of the aquaplaning model based on the ground truth data and unsupervised training based on the subsequent environment data;” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instruction to Apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity are directed to merely gathering data from sensors on a vehicle. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 2:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation “the receiving of the ground truth data includes detecting liquid obstacles including each of water, oil, snow, and ice.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data gathering.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply explaining what types of liquid obstacles will be obtained from gathered data. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 3:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitations:
“the ground truth data and environment data include light reflection detected by the at least one vehicle sensor” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data gathering.
“and wherein the model determines whether the ground truth data or environment data indicated a liquid obstacle based on the light reflection.” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) the judicial exception. The previously stated judicial exception of determining whether environment data indicates a liquid obstacle is merely being applied based on further data.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply explaining what types of liquid obstacles will be obtained from gathered data. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 4:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 4.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation “the model determines whether the light reflection indicates a liquid obstacle based on an expected reflection for a time of day.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data gathering.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply explaining a further data point of expected reflection for a time of day must be gathered for the previously stated judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 5:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“generating a liquid obstacle database based on the model,” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human creating a collection of data based on a model. This limitation can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation “the liquid obstacle database
including at least one liquid obstacle.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is simply limiting the database to one containing a liquid obstacle.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 6:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 6.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation “the detected liquid obstacle includes parameters associated with the at least one liquid obstacle, the parameters including at least one of a size and depth of the detected liquid obstacle.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data gathering.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply further explaining the types of data to be gathered. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 7:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 7.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation “receiving operational information from vehicle systems separate from the image data.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data gathering.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply gathering data from vehicle systems. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 8.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation “the additional operational information includes vehicle controller area network (CAN) data and vehicle global positioning system (GPS) data containing vehicle data.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data gathering.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply selecting a particular data source for the operational information and vehicle data. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 9:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“generating a remedial action during operation of the vehicle in response to the model indicating an upcoming presence of a liquid obstacle and the vehicle data.” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human writing down a remedial action to be taken in response to gathered data. This limitation can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 9 has no further limitations.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 10:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 10.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation “the vehicle data includes at least one of vehicle speed, weight, load, tire pressure and state.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data gathering.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply further defining the types of data to be collected. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 11:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation “the remedial action includes an alert including at least one of a haptic, visual, or audible alert.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is merely limiting the judicial exception to one of a haptic, visual, or audible nature.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 12:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 12.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation “the remedial action includes sending instructions to at least one vehicle systems to mitigate the effect of aquaplaning.” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instruction to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as it is merely stating to apply the remedial exception by sending it to a vehicle system.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 13:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 13.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation “the vehicle systems include at least one of braking systems, traction control systems, stability control system, steering system, and safety systems.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is merely limiting the type of vehicle systems the remedial action will be sent to.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claims 14-18:
Claim 14:
Step 1: Claim 14 and its dependent claims 15-18 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 recites judicial exceptions, noted in bold:
“deploying an aquaplaning model to a vehicle;” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human taking a handwritten model and placing it in a vehicle. This limitation can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“generating a remedial action in response to the model indicating an upcoming presence of a liquid obstacle.” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human writing down a remedial action to be taken in response to gathered data. This limitation can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitations:
“receiving environment data from at least one vehicle sensor during operation of the vehicle;” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as it is mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“determining whether at least one liquid obstacle is identified by applying the aquaplaning model to the environment data;” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instruction to Apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity are directed to merely gathering data from sensors on a vehicle. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the judicial exception of independent claim 14 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 15.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation “the remedial action includes an alert including at least one of a haptic, visual, or audible alert.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is merely limiting the judicial exception to one of a haptic, visual, or audible nature.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 16:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 14 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 16.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitations:
“the remedial action includes sending instructions to at least one vehicle systems to mitigate the effect of aquaplaning,” This limitation has been identified as Mere Instruction to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as it is merely stating to apply the remedial exception by sending it to a vehicle system.
“the vehicle systems include at least one of braking systems, traction control systems, stability control system and safety systems.” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is merely limiting the type of vehicle systems the remedial action will be sent to.
Step 2B: As there are no limitations that fall within the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity category, no further evaluation is required at this step.
Claim 17:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 14 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 17.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation “transmitting the indication of the at least one obstacle to a server external to the vehicle.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data gathering.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply sending data to a destination. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 18:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the judicial exception of independent claim 14 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 18.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitations:
“the server cloud is operatively connected to at least one vehicle in a predefined radius of the at least one obstacle,” This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it is merely limiting the server cloud to one that is within a predefined radius of an obstacle.
“transmit an indication of the at least one obstacle to the at least one vehicle within the predefined radius.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data transmission.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply sending data to a destination within a radius. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 19 and 20:
Claim 19:
Step 1: Claim 19 and its dependent claim 20 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 recites judicial exceptions, noted in bold:
“updating the aquaplaning model with the updated vehicle data;” This limitation can reasonably be read as a human updating a model with gathered data. This limitation can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitations:
“receiving an aquaplaning model capable of determining whether a liquid obstacle is detected along a vehicle route;” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as it is mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“receiving updated vehicle data from at least one vehicle from the group of vehicles;” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as it is mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“transmitting the updated aquaplaning model to the other of the vehicles in the group of vehicles.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as it is mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity are directed to merely gathering data, the data being the aquaplaning model, vehicle data, and the transmitted model. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 20:
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 20, the judicial exception of independent claim 19 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: No further judicial exceptions have been incorporated in claim 20.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 20 additionally recites the limitation “the updated vehicle data indicates a liquid obstacle, and further comprising transmitted the liquid obstacle to at least one non-vehicle third party.” This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as it is mere data gathering.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution
activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is simply defining what a set of data indicates and sending said data to a destination. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Zhou_2021 (US 2021/0383269 A1).
Claim 14. Zhou_2021 teaches “A method for mitigating aquaplaning in a vehicle (Par. 3: “… a
method for generating a road condition deep learning model is provided.” Par. 78: “…granularity may be useful when deciding whether to drive through or avoid a particular section of the (wet) roadway.”) comprising: deploying an aquaplaning model to a vehicle; (Par. 2: “The constructed model can be deployed in autonomous vehicles…”) receiving environment data from at least one vehicle sensor during operation of the vehicle; (Fig. 1A, Fig 11A, Par 10: “The one or more sensors are configured to detect objects or conditions in an environment around the vehicle.”) determining whether at least one liquid obstacle is identified by applying the aquaplaning model to the environment data; (Par. 10: “The one or more processors are configured to use the stored model to generate information associated with the discrete classification or continuous regression/estimation of road wetness based on the received sensor data…”) generating a remedial action in response to the model indicating an upcoming presence of a liquid obstacle. (Par. 90: “The end result of this modeling approach is the ability to give a discrete classification or continuous regression/estimation of road wetness, which has a number of beneficial uses. These include the triggering of safety precautions (e.g., pulling over for roads too wet to handle)…”).
Claim 16. Zhou_2021 teaches the limitations of claim 14. Zhou_2021 further teaches “the
remedial action includes sending instructions to at least one vehicle systems to mitigate the effect of aquaplaning, wherein the vehicle systems include at least one of braking systems, traction control systems, stability control system and safety systems. (Par. 90: “The end result of this modeling approach is the ability to give a discrete classification or continuous regression/estimation of road wetness, which has a number of beneficial uses. These include the triggering of safety precautions (e.g., pulling over for roads too wet to handle)…”).
Claim 19. Zhou_2021 teaches “A method for updating an aquaplaning model across a group of
vehicles, (Par. 94: “In addition to using the road condition model information for operation of the vehicle, this information may also be shared with other vehicles, such as vehicles that are part of a fleet. This can be done to aid in route planning, gathering of additional ground truth data, model updates, etc.”) comprising: receiving an aquaplaning model capable of determining whether a liquid obstacle is detected along a vehicle route; (Par. 2: “The constructed model can be deployed in autonomous vehicles for classifying/regressing the road wetness…”) receiving updated vehicle data from at least one vehicle from the group of vehicles; and updating the aquaplaning model with the updated vehicle data; and transmitting the updated aquaplaning model to the other of the vehicles in the group of vehicles. (Fig. 12A and 12B, Par. 94: “In addition to using the road condition model information for operation of the vehicle, this information may also be shared with other vehicles, such as vehicles that are part of a fleet. This can be done to aid in route planning, gathering of additional ground truth data, model updates, etc.”).
Claim 20. Zhou_2021 teaches the limitations of claim 19. Zhou_2021 further teaches “the updated vehicle data indicates a liquid obstacle, (Par. 43: “The sensors may 232 may also detect certain aspects of weather conditions, such as snow, rain or water spray”) and further comprising transmitted the liquid obstacle to at least one non-vehicle third party.” (“… some or all of the memory 206 may be an event data recorder or other secure data storage system configured to store vehicle diagnostics and/or detected sensor data, which may be on board the vehicle or remote, depending on the implementation.”)
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou_2021 (US 2021/0383269 A1) in view of Wylie_2021 (US 2021/0056778 A1).
Claim 1. Zhou_2021 teaches “A method of developing an aquaplaning mitigation model, (Par. 2:
“The constructed model can be deployed in autonomous vehicles for classifying/regressing the road wetness with on-board and/or off-board signals as the input”) receiving ground truth data from at least one vehicle sensor concerning detected liquid obstacles on a physical roadway (Par. 62: “By way of example, the ground truth can be collected using sensors (e.g., front and/or rear sensors 402) designed for water thickness”) by performing an initial vehicle operation over the physical roadway; (Par. 62 “Notice that the sensors used to collect ground truth data may only be placed in selected vehicles for the training of deep learning models during the development phase”) generating an initial aquaplaning model based on the ground truth data; (Par. 2: “The ground truth… [is] used to build a DL model.”) receiving subsequent environment data from the at least one vehicle sensor; (Par. 3: “receiving… sensor data of an environment along a portion of a roadway from one or more on-board vehicle sensors”) determining whether the subsequent environment data indicates a liquid obstacle; (Par. 43: “The sensors may 232 may also detect certain aspects of weather conditions, such as snow, rain or water spray, or puddles, ice or other materials on the roadway.”) applying supervised training of the aquaplaning model based on the ground truth data (Par. 28: “training inputs are evaluated with respect to ground truth information for a given roadway segment”) (Par. 83: “To obtain a dry/wet classification, a threshold on the probability is given… During the training of the model, this classification is compared to the ground truth as an evaluation of the quality of the current model…”).
While Zhou_2021 teaches a method of developing an aquaplaning mitigation model, Zhou_2021 does not teach that the model is built from “unsupervised training based on the subsequent environment data”.
Wylie_2021, however, teaches “unsupervised training based on the subsequent environment data” (Par. 34: “In other instances, the vehicle anomaly detection system 106 may perform unsupervised machine-learning using… environmental data.”).
Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle safety model generation. Before the effective filling date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow the method of Zhou_2021 to generate, through unsupervised training, its own set of output data to utilize during supervised training. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the supervised training of Zhou_2021 and the unsupervised training of Wylie_2021 to create a model that is able to create its own output for supervised training in the event no output is provided in the form of ground truth data (Wylie_2021 Par. 33: “Thus, the vehicle anomaly detection system 106 may generate or learn a mapping function based on the input variables collected data, vehicle attributes, and environmental data to determine an output variable, e.g., detected vehicle anomalies. The vehicle anomaly detection system 106 may iteratively determine the function by making predictions with the training data with known results. Moreover, the vehicle anomaly detection system 106 may train to detect specific anomalies, bad brakes, worn tires, misfiring engine, potholes, wet conditions, etc.”).
Claim 2. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou_2021 also teaches “the receiving of the ground truth data includes detecting liquid obstacles including each of water, oil, snow, and ice.” (Par. 79: “While wet and dry are two outputs of the model, additional granularity can include, by way of example only “slightly wet”… “icy”… “snow”… “chemically wet”… “other”, for instance where the specific nature of the road condition does not fall into any other category.
Claim 3. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou_2021 also teaches “the ground truth data and environment data include light reflection detected by the at least one vehicle sensor (Par. 82: “For instance, lidar sensor information may include intensity and reflectivity” NOTE: Lidar sensors are used in both ground truth and environmental data collection) and wherein the model determines whether the ground truth data or environment data indicated a liquid obstacles based on the light reflection.” (Par 82: “…the reflection of light on water impacts the return intensity because water changes how much light gets reflected back to and away from the sensor.”)
Claim 7. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou_2021 also teaches “receiving operational information from vehicle systems separate from the image data.” (Par. 44: “the perception system 224 may include… positioning sensors (e.g., gyroscopes, accelerometers and/or other inertial components)”.
Claim 8. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou_2021 also teaches “the additional operational information includes vehicle controller area network (CAN) data (Fig. 3A and Par. 50: “The control system may constitute an electronic control unit (ECU)… the data 310 may be retrieved, stored or modified by one or more processors…” NOTE: ECUs communicate data through CANs; see prior art made of record and not relied upon in conclusion “How it Works: The Computer Inside Your Car”) and vehicle global positioning system (GPS) data containing vehicle data.” (Par. 33: “…each sensor unit may include… other sensors (e.g., positioning sensors such as GPS sensors).”
Claim 9. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou_2021 also teaches “generating a remedial action during operation of the vehicle in response to the model indicating an upcoming presence of a liquid obstacle and the vehicle data.” (Par. 90: “The end result of this modeling approach is the ability to give a discrete classification or continuous regression/estimation of road wetness, which has a number of beneficial uses. These include the triggering of safety precautions (e.g., pulling over for roads too wet to handle)…”)
Claim 10. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou_2021 also teaches “the vehicle data includes at least one of vehicle speed, weight, load, tire pressure and state.” (Par. 40: “…the computing devices 202 may be able to receive information about tire pressure, balance and other factors that may impact driving in an autonomous mode.”
Claim 12. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhou_2021 also teaches “the remedial action includes sending instructions to at least one vehicle systems to mitigate the effect of aquaplaning.” (Par. 90: “The end result of this modeling approach is the ability to give a discrete classification or continuous regression/estimation of road wetness, which has a number of beneficial uses. These include the triggering of safety precautions (e.g., pulling over for roads too wet to handle)…”)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou_2021 (US 2021/0383269 A1) in view of Wylie_2021 (US 2021/0056778 A1) in view of Steinberg_2020 (WO 2020/148567 A2).
Claim 4. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 3.
While Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach a method of detecting liquid obstacles based on reflected light, they do not teach detecting liquid obstacles “based on an expected reflection for a time of day.”
Steinberg_2020, however, teaches “the model determines whether the light reflection indicates a liquid obstacle based on an expected reflection for a time of day.” (Par. 99: “LIDAR system 100 is configured to detect objects… Objects 208 may be a… fluid object (e.g. fog, water…)” Par. 231: “historical operation parameter may be based on a simulated value for recent operation parameter 1401 based on similar conditions (e.g., time of day…)” NOTE: The historical operation parameters are historical data on objects (e.g. water), the data including reflectivity of the LIDAR light beams.
Zhou_2021, Wylie_2021, and Steinberg_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle safety systems. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhou_2021, Wylie_2021, and Steinberg_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide a method to determine the health of the LIDAR system over time (Par. 229: “Historical operation parameter may be any value that may serve as a reference point to determine a health of LIDAR system” (e.g. if the vehicle were to pass by the same body of water over time, but the LIDAR reflectivity reading was degrading)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the historical reflectivity readings of Steinberg_2020 within the method of Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 to obtain a model that can provide information on its own health.
Claims 5, 6, 11, and 13 are rejected as being unpatentable over Zhou_2021 (US 2021/0383269 A1) in view of Wylie_2021 (US 2021/0056778 A1) in view of Raichelgauz_2021 (US 2021/0053575 A1).
Claim 5. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 1.
Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 do not teach “generating a liquid obstacle database based on the
model, the liquid obstacle database including at least one liquid obstacle.”
Raichelgauz_2021, however, teaches “generating a liquid obstacle database based on the
model, the liquid obstacle database including at least one liquid obstacle.” (Fig. 6, Par. 593: “…step 1630 may include populating an obstacle database.”, Par. 551: “Obstacle avoidance manager 460 may store obstacle information received from vehicles 100 in obstacle database 270…”, Par. 519 “…in some cases it may be observed that the slight depression may fill with water or mud when it rains”).
Zhou_2021, Wylie_2021, and Raichelgauz_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle safety systems. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhou_2021, Wylie_2021, and Raichelgauz_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the capability to quickly recognize a liquid obstacle based on stored data of that obstacle having present previously (Raichelgauz_2021 Par. 557: “obstacle extractor 464 may be operative to detect an obstacle based on an image of an obstacle, where the image may be matched to a reference image of an obstacle stored in obstacle database 470”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the obstacle database of Raichelgauz_2021 with the liquid obstacle detector of Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 to obtain a liquid obstacle detector that can more quickly determine a historically present liquid obstacle.
Claim 6. Zhou_2021, Wylie_2021, and Raichelgauz_2021 teach the limitations of claim 5. Raichelgauz_2021 also teaches “the detected liquid obstacle includes parameters associated with the at least one liquid obstacle, the parameters including at least one of a size and depth of the detected liquid obstacle.” (Par. 589: “A model of the obstacle may define one or more parameters of the obstacle such as shape, size, color of pixels, grayscale of pixels, and the like.”)
Claim 11. Zhou_2021 and Wylie_2021 teach the limitations of claim 9. Raichelgauz_2021 further teaches “the remedial action includes an alert including at least one of a haptic, visual, or audible alert.” (Par. 638: “For example—the responding may include generating an alert perceivable by a human driver of the vehicle…”).
Claim 13. Zhou_2021, Wylie_2021, and Raichelgauz_2021 teach the limitations of claim 11. Zhou_2021 also teaches “the vehicle systems include at least one of braking systems, traction control systems, stability control system, steering system, and safety systems.” (Par. 90: “The end result of this modeling approach is the ability to give a discrete classification or continuous regression/estimation of road wetness, which has a number of beneficial uses. These include the triggering of safety precautions (e.g.. pulling over for roads too wet to handle)”).
Claims 15, 17, and 18 are rejected as being unpatentable over Zhou_2021 (US 2021/0383269 A1) in view of Raichelgauz_2021 (US 2021/0053575 A1).
Claim 15. Zhou_2021 teaches the limitations of claim 14.
While Zhou_2021 teaches generating a remedial action in response to an upcoming liquid obstacle, Zhou_2021 does not explicitly teach “the remedial action includes an alert including at least one of a haptic, visual, or audible alert.”
Raichelgauz_2021, however, teaches “the remedial action includes an alert including at least one of a haptic, visual, or audible alert.” (Par. 638: “For example—the responding may include generating an alert perceivable by a human driver of the vehicle…”).
Zhou_2021 and Raichelgauz_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called vehicle safety systems. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhou_2021 and Raichelgauz_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the capability to quickly alert a driver of a vehicle of Zhou_2021 of an upcoming liquid obstacle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the obstacle alert of Raichelgauz_2021 with the liquid obstacle detector of Zhou_2021 to obtain a liquid obstacle detector that can alert a human driver to the presence of an upcoming obstacle.
Claim 17. Zhou_2021 teaches the limitations of claim 14. Raichelgauz_2021 further teaches “transmitting the indication of the at least one obstacle to a server external to the vehicle.” (Fig. 3A, Par. 551: “Obstacle avoidance manager 460 may store obstacle information received from vehicles 100 in obstacle database 270…”, Par. 545: “Server 400 comprises… obstacle avoidance manager 460, and obstacle database 470.”).
Claim 18. Zhou_2021 and Raichelgauz_2021 teach the limitations of claim 17. Raichelgauz_2021 further teaches “the server cloud is operatively connected to at least one vehicle in a predefined radius of the at least one obstacle to transmit an indication of the at least one obstacle to the at least one vehicle within the predefined radius.” (Par. 509: “the uploads/downloads may be triggered by location, where obstacle information may be downloaded from obstacle avoidance server 400 when vehicle 100 enters an area for which it does not have up-to-date obstacle information.” NOTE: The uploads/downloads are in reference to obstacle data.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wojdyla, Ben, “How it Works: The Computer Inside Your Car”, Popular Mechanics, 2012
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W LYON whose telephone number is (571)270-0757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:30, Friday 08:30-12:30.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/AWL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights