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 06/03 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
The amendments to the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding argument A: As discussed in further detail below, the amended limitation amounts to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a method (Step 1: Yes.) System claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
obtain from a user interface a user input specifying an error criterion;
process trace data from a vehicle to provide within a lane segment a group of passes pn where n
∈
{1, …N} and each pass pn identifies a keypoints subset kn within an unvalidated keypoints set;
determine error measurements en for each pass pn by:
determining a valid keypoint set vn based on applying association heuristics to the keypoints within subsets k1 through kn;
determining an estimated trajectory based on set vn; and
calculating measurements en based on the estimated trajectory and a reference trajectory of the vehicle;
train a machine learning logic based on the error measurements and the passes to provide an error rate function predicting improvement in additional error measurements if additional passes are obtained; and
display via the user interface a graph based on the group of error measurements and the group of passes, an error criterion representation, and, based on the error rate function, a trendline and an estimated number of additional passes by a followup vehicle that is required to satisfy the error criterion.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this system performs a process of separating trace data into separate passes, determining error measurements for a set of keypoints on each pass and using said measurements to determine an error function. These steps are all performed by mathematical operations, and thus fall within the mathematical processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include (1): Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites the elements of a processor and a memory; these are generic computer components which amount to no more than instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore, the recitation of “train a machine learning logic… to provide an error rate function” is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than instructions to provide the error rate function (i.e., the abstract idea) through the use of a trained machine learning model (i.e., a computer). The claim additionally recites the actions of obtaining an error criterion from a user interface and displaying data via the user interface. These actions are recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than, respectively, the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering and the insignificant post-solution activity of displaying calculated data. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned above, the recited elements amount to no more than instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer or insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements are also recited at such a high level of generality that they are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claims 9 and 16) is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 further define the abstract idea and are thus abstract for the same reasons. Therefore, claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16: The previously cited art fails to teach processing trace data to obtain a keypoints subset for each pass of a vehicle, or determining error measurements for the keypoints set. The closest available art, Rogers (“Creating and Evaluating Highly Accurate Maps”, previously cited), teaches determining the overall measurement error as a function of a total number of passes (see Fig. 1 below). However, Rogers fails to teach determining said error function based on error values for a keypoints set, or using said error function to determine a number of passes to be performed.
PNG
media_image1.png
776
1101
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Measurement accuracy as a function of number of passes (originally Rogers Fig. 2)
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claims 1, 9, and 16, and would thus be allowable for at least the same reasons.
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 SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights