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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims. Claims 1-10, 14-17 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 10/01/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/01/2025; “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
In response to the amended claims files on 10/01/2025, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments according to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 10/01/2025, see pages 7-8 “Rejections Under 35 USC § 101”, and pages 8-9 “Rejections Under 35 USC §102 and §103”, with respect to claims 1-20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection of claim 1, applicant argues that the newly amended claim overcomes the rejection under 35 USC §101 because it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application specifically by reciting the limitation of “perform[ing], based on the one or more interpolated AV states, a diagnostic process on the AV.”. The office, respectfully, disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, the diagnostic process as recited in the claim and under its plain meaning is an of detecting/determining a fault based on sensor data and is purely a mental process and falls under abstract idea. Also, determining an interpolated state at the time before the current state of the AV (which is inferring a past state from the current data), is recited at a high level of generality which can be mentally performed (can be done in human mind by pen and paper). It is noted that if the interpolating step/limitation is actually improving the functionality of remote monitoring by saving bandwidth by reducing the amount of data needed to be communicated between the AV and remote data center, the claim as recited had not encompass the improvement which can integrate the claim to a practical application or inventive step. Accordingly, this is the office stance that the claims as previously or currently presented do not overcome the 101 rejections. Therefore, the rejection maintains.
Further, applicant argues that Avedisov fails to disclose the limitations recited in the newly amended claims 1, 8, and 15. However, newly added limitations of “the first AV state change determined based on a portion of the sensor data”, and “data processing center remote from the AV” has changed the scope of the claims. Therefore, new ground of rejection has been applied (See Office Action below),
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive of the current claims as recited. The title of the invention encompasses the determination of the autonomous vehicle position, however, the claims as recited don’t cover the scope of the determination of the vehicle position. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 1-7, 8-14 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed, respectively, to a system, method and manufacture. Therefore, the claim falls within at least one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong I evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
An autonomous vehicle (AV) comprising: one or more sensor, a communications interface; a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the communications interface and to the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: obtain sensor data generated by the one or more sensors; determine a first AV state change of the AV that occurred at a first time based on the sensor data, the first AV state change being associated with a kinematic change of the AV; the first AV state change determined based on a portion of the sensor data; in response to determining the first AV state change, generate a first message including a portion of the sensor data associated with the kinematic change; and transmit, over the communication interface and one or more communication networks to a data processing center remote from the AV, the first message, the first message causing the data processing center to determine one or more interpolated AV states of the AV that are determined to have occurred during a time interval before the first time based on the portion of the sensor data received in the first message; and perform, based on the one or more interpolated AV states, a diagnostic process on the AV.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, the limitations “determining a first AV change”, “generate a first message” and “transmit the first message” and “determine the state of the AV before the first time” and “perform a diagnostic process on the AV” in the context of this claim encompasses processes that can be performed in human mind it falls under mental process that is a category of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step2A Prong II evaluation: Practical Application – No
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “over one or more communication networks and to a data center” that is recited at a high level of generality and a well-known routine in the art. Data center is additional element that is acted upon and not part of the system. Furthermore, limitation of communications interface, memory, and processor are highly generic computers performing generic computer functions. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim(s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “transmit, over one or more communication networks and to a data center,” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. According to MPEP 2106.05.(d)(II), receiving and transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); Therefore, generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the Office submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible
Claim 8 and 15 recite limitations for the method and manufacture (non-transitory medium) that comprise the same abstract of claim 1. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 are also patent ineligible for the same reasons stated in the above for claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite the same abstract idea and are patent ineligible due to the same reasoning as claim 1. Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 are more description about the limitations of determining the interpolated AV states which is a well-known mathematical method and falls under mental processes (can be done with pen and paper) and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, claims 7 and 14 recite providing the portion of the sensor data associates with the AV state change to cloud services. Using cloud services shareable between different components of a system is a well-known method in managing the data and is an extra-solution activity and falls under mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8-12, 14, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avedisov et al., US 20240262346, hereinafter “Avedisov”, in view of Shults et al., US 20200164509, hereinafter “Shults”.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Avedisov discloses an autonomous vehicle (AV) ([0001], [0016]) and a computer-implemented method (Abstract, “system and method”) comprising: one or more sensors ([0023], [0030]); a communications interface ([0023], “communication interface”); a memory storing instructions ([0004], [0025]); and at least one processor coupled to the communications interface and to the memory ([0024]-[0026], [0060],), and a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations ([0004], [0065], claim 9), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor ([0025], [0061]) to obtain sensor data generated by the one or more sensor ([0023], [0030]-[0031]); determine a first AV state change of the AV that occurred at a first time based on the sensor data, the first AV state change being associated with a kinematic change of the AV (Abstract, [0003], [0004], [0014], [0030], “vehicle state/operating conditions (e.g., vehicle position, vehicle speed, vehicle heading, brake light operation, etc.) or characteristics, or signals that can be used to derive vehicle state/operating conditions or characteristics. These may include, but are not limited to vehicle acceleration sensors 112, vehicle speed sensors 114, wheelspin sensors 116 (e.g., one for each wheel), a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) 120, accelerometers such as a 3-axis accelerometer 122 to detect roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle,”, __according to Avedisov, the current state determination at a time (t.sub.i) by receiving the information/signals from sensors (which includes e.g., speed, acceleration sensors), as disclosed in paragraph [0030]), meets the limitation of determining state change (associated with kinematic change) of the AV__ ); in response to determining the first AV state change, generate a first message including the portion of the sensor data associated with the kinematic change (Abstract, “current vehicle state-related information”, [0003], “transmitting a second message describing a current state of the vehicle (CS.sub.i) at a time (t.sub.i),”, [0004], __the reference discloses the step of transmitting a message comprising data associated with the current state of the vehicle that includes (second message in the art which reads on first message in the claim) and it reads on generating a message including a portion of the sensor data associated with the kinematic change because as disclosed in paragraph [0030], data comprises of speed and acceleration information of the vehicle__); and transmit, over the communication interface and one or more communication networks to a data processing center remote from the AV, the first message ([0018], [0025], and [0027], __according to at least these cited paragraphs, the reference discloses that the messages (e.g., BSMs, MMs, and other similar messages) are transferred by communication circuit that according to paragraph [0027], may include wireless communication circuits/network. Furthermore, under the office broadest reasonable interpretation, term “data center” as recited in the claim, refers to a data/information processing center or a computer center which has server/processor. Therefore, computing component 600 as disclosed in the prior art relied upon, according to Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0059]- [0064], meet the claim limitation of data center. For example, according to [0059], it is disclosed that a computing component can be a server and according to paragraph [0027], the vehicle can send message to infrastructures through V2I communication__) the first message causing the data center to determine one or more interpolated AV states of the AV during a time interval before the first time based on the first message. (__Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, determining interpolated AV states of the AV during a time interval before the first time, refers to predicting the state vehicle at previous time (before determining the current state of the vehicle), meaning that by determining the current state, the current state before that is also predicted or interpolated as recited in the claim__, at least [0003], “interpolating the predicted state of the vehicle (PS.sub.i) corresponding to the time (t.sub.i) based on the first time-stamped data breadcrumb.”, __according to the reference, the current state of the vehicle is obtained and then the predicted state of the vehicle before the current state is determined which reads on the claim limitation of determining the interpolated AV state before the first time (first time reads on current time in the reference)__, ([0003], “interpolating the predicted state of the vehicle (PS.sub.i) corresponding to the time (t.sub.i) based on the first time-stamped data breadcrumb.”)
Avedisov doesn’t explicitly disclose the first AV state change determined based on a portion of the sensor data and a data processing center remote from the AV.
However, Shults teaches first AV state change determined based on a portion of the sensor data (at least [0003], “The data processing system can generate a third data stream based on the portion of the first data stream”, [0008], [0045], “The event detector 112 can identify events in the data streams based on a state change.”, [0053], “event detector 112 detecting or identifying an event, the event detector 112 can extract a portion of the data stream that includes the event.”, [0064]) and a data processing center remote from the AV ([0047], “event detector 112 can identify an event based on a message received from an external device such as the remote data processing system”, [0060]-[0062]) and determine one or more interpolated AV states of the AV that are determined to have occurred during a time interval before the first time based on the portion of the sensor data received in the first message (at least [0047]-[0048], [0060], “The data stream synchronization engine [] interpolate or estimate the position of the data points between the neighboring time stamps.”, [0062], [0064], “The data stream synchronization engine 110 can process the log file to identify the last state change even if the state change occurred before the extracted portion of the data streams.”), perform, based on the one or more interpolated AV states, a diagnostic process on the AV (at least [0035], [0040], “a computational job will be performed at a predetermined time in the future or responsive to a predicted event.”, [0041], [0056], [0060], [0087]).
Therefore, Shults teaches determining the AV state change based on a portion of the sensor data according to the cited paragraph in the previous paragraph. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system as taught by Avedisov with the step of determination of AV state change based on a portion of the sensor data and transmitting the portion of the sensor data to a remote data processing center to determine the interpolated AV states during a time interval before the current time as taught by shults, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing network bandwidth usage by transmitting only the extracted potion of the data stream instead of the full (i.e. reducing the amount of AV state information). Accordingly, this is the office stance that the combination of Avedisov and Shults teaches the limitations recited in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Avedisov discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a second AV state change of the AV at a second time after the first time based on the sensor data, the second AV state change being associated with the kinematic change of the AV (at least [0047], “flow diagram 400 may be repeated for every i-th BSM transmission between times (to) and (to +T)”, [0052], “after the time (t.sub.i)”, [0053] ); in response to determining the second AV state change, generate a second message including a second portion of the sensor data associated with the kinematic change; and transmit, over the communication interface and one or more communication networks to the data processing center, the second message (at least [0023], [0047], “flow diagram 400 may be repeated for every i-th BSM transmission between times (to) and (to +T)”, [0054], __according to the reference the flow diagram of determining the current state of the vehicle at time i and predicted the state of the vehicle before that repeats for a predetermined period of time and the process meets the cited limitation related to the second state of the AV__ ).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Avedisov disclose wherein the data processing center (at least Fig.6, “computing component”) is configured to determine the one or more interpolated AV states of the AV during a time interval between the first time and the second time ([0003], “interpolating the predicted state of the vehicle (PS.sub.i) corresponding to the time (t.sub.i) based on the first time-stamped data point may comprise: i) associating the time (t.sub.i) with the first time-stamped data breadcrumb and a second time-stamped data breadcrumb of the plurality of time-stamped data breadcrumbs based on the time-stamp for the first time-stamped data breadcrumb and the time-stamp for the second time-stamped data breadcrumb, the time (t.sub.i) lying between the time-stamp for the first time-stamped data breadcrumb and the time-stamp for the second time-stamped data breadcrumb; and ii) interpolating the predicted state of the vehicle (PS.sub.i) corresponding to the time (t.sub.i) based on the first time-stamped data breadcrumb and the second time-stamped data breadcrumb.”)
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18, Avedisov discloses wherein a first interpolated AV state of the one or more interpolated AV states is associated with a kinematic state of the AV ([0004], “interpolate a predicted state of the vehicle”, “predicted speed”, [0030], “ signals that indicate vehicle state/operating conditions (e.g., vehicle position, vehicle speed, vehicle heading, […] vehicle acceleration sensors 112, vehicle speed sensors 114, […] accelerometers such as a 3-axis accelerometer 122 to detect roll, pitch and yaw of the vehicle,”__ speed and acceleration data reads on the kinematic state of the vehicle__).
Regarding claim 5, 12, and 19, Avedisov discloses wherein the first AV state change of the AV is associated with an environment associated with the AV ([0030], “environmental sensors 128 (e.g., to detect salinity or other environmental conditions). Additional sensors 132 can also be included as may be appropriate for a given implementation of BSM communication circuit 110 such as sensors for detecting operation of brake lights or turning signals on connected vehicle 10. As alluded to above, BSM communication circuit 110 can use information derived from sensors 152 to determine a current state of connected vehicle 10 and/or predicted states for connected vehicle 10.”).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avedisov in view of Shults, further in view of Lowe et al., US 20200294385 A1, hereinafter “Lowe”.
Regarding claim 6, 13 and 20, Avedisov in view of Shults teaches the AV of claims 1, 8 and 15, however, Avedisov in view of Shults doesn’t teach wherein the first AV state change is further associated with an emergency event, wherein the kinematic change indicates an emergency event.
However, Lowe teaches the first AV state change is further associated with an emergency event, wherein the kinematic change indicates an emergency event ([0001], [0003]-[0015], [0058], __according to at least cited paragraph, in response to indicating an emergency event and based on the probe data sending form probe vehicles (which reads on determining the vehicle state), responsive vehicle action message is sent to the affected vehicles__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system as taught by Avedisov in view of Shults with capability of indicating the emergency event and the vehicle responsive state change as taught by Lowe, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving system performance and enhance safety by considering/monitoring the state of the vehicle in case of emergency event (e.g., vehicle sudden braking) and communicate the related data.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avedisovin view of Shults, further in view of Frazzoli et al., US 20220234614, hereinafter “Frazzoli”.
Regarding claim 7 and 14, even though Avedisov implicitly discloses the data center is further configured to provide the portion of the sensor data to one or more cloud services, wherein the one or more cloud services are associated with the first AV state change (__according to paragraphs [0062], a media drive can be a cloud service although it is not disclosed explicitly in Avedisov reference)
In addition and for the purpose of more clarifies prosecution, Frazzoli teaches the data center is further configured to provide the portion of the sensor data to one or more cloud services, wherein the one or more cloud services are associated with the first AV state change ([0067], [0075], [0080], “Data centers 204a, 204b, and 204c provide cloud computing services to computer systems”, [0081]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system as taught by Avedisov in view of Shults with providing the portion of the sensor data (associated with the AV state change), to a cloud service as taught by Frazzoli, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared computing resources such as networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, and etc. as taught by Frazolli.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669