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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
The Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to a mental process (final Office Action, p. 9). Without conceding to this rejection, Applicant amends the claims to address the Examiner's concern.
For example, claim 1 withholds the instruction from a human until after the recited confirmation occurs. The preamble and first element state that the instruction "is not yet available to an occupant of the vehicle." The later steps require retrieving sensor data from the surrounding environment, using the AI model to generate a score by comparing statements, and, in response to the tag being present, confirming that the upcoming event is beginning based on the score meeting a threshold and the sensor data. Only "in response to the confirming" does the method "cause the instruction to be displayed" to the occupant. Because the instruction (derived from the AI- generated statement) is not accessible to any person until after confirmation, no human can consider, evaluate, or apply it beforehand. A "mental process" cannot be performed on information that a human never receives.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree. The claims still recite mental steps of parsing and comparing and do not integrate the claim into a practical application. See rejection under 35 USC 101 below for detailed analysis of the claims.
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection of the claims under USC 101 is maintained herein.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite parsing the instruction into a statement that includes a tag, wherein the tag identifies that the statement must be confirmed by live data or recent data; comparing the satment to other statements in a knowledge base to generate a score, wherein the other statements are based on vehicle data; in response to the tag being present, confirming the upcoming event is beginning based on the score satisfying a threshold, and on the sensor data. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
That is, other than reciting “a processor and AI model” nothing in the claim(s) limitation(s) preclude the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim(s) limitations encompass a person looking at data such statement data of an environment surrounding instructions data of an upcoming event, statements stored in a knowledgebase, and sensor/vehicle data could pars the instruction into a statement that includes a tag, wherein the tag identifies that the statement must be confirmed by live data or recent data; and compare the satment to other statements in a knowledge base to generate a score, wherein the other statements are based on vehicle data; in response to the tag being present, confirm the upcoming event is beginning based on the score satisfying a threshold, and on the sensor data. The recitation of “a processor and AI model” to perform the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of retrieving sensor data collected by the vehicle about its surrounding environment; generating an instruction to control the vehicle based on an upcoming event using the AI model, wherein the instruction is not yet available to an occupant of the vehicle; displaying the instruction on a display of the vehicle to the occupant, a processor and memory, an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and a display. The retrieving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data (environment data surrounding a vehicle and upcoming events), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating and displaying steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the determining/planning step(s)) and amount to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited additional limitation(s) of a processor and memory, an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and a display are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
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.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating, displaying, and devices (e.g. processor, memory) elements/steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these elements/steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichelgauz et al (US 20170262453 A1) in view of Kothart (US 20200117187A1) in view of Pronovost (US 20240211797 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Raichelgauz discloses a method performed by a processor of a vehicle (see at least [0043]), the method comprising: retrieving sensor data collected by the vehicle about its surrounding environment (see at least [0021-0025], [0035-0042], and [0061-0064]); parsing the instruction into a statement that includes a tag (see at least [0025-0027], [0031-0032], [0036-0042], and [0055-0064], Raichelgauz discloses parsing/associating a decision (first response) into one or more portions of the one or more event multimedia content (factual statements.)); comparing the statement to other statements in a knowledge base (see at least [0021], [0056], [0062], and [0065], “The generated signatures are compared to a plurality of signatures representing multimedia content elements showing known driving events. Each known driving event multimedia content element is associated with a predetermined driving decision. Based on the comparison, at least one matching event multimedia content element is determined. At least one driving decision is determined based on the at least one matching event multimedia content element. The determined driving decisions may be sent to a driving control system configured in real-time such that the driving control system implements the determined driving decisions.”), wherein the other statements are based on vehicle data (see at least [0034-0036], [0052], [0062], and [0065]).
Raichelgauz do not specifically disclose wherein the processor execute an artificial intelligence (AI) model; generating an instruction to control the vehicle based on an upcoming event using the AI model, wherein the instruction is not yet available to an occupant of the vehicle; and in response to the tag being present; and in response to the confirming, causing the instruction to be displayed on a display of the vehicle to the occupant.
Kothart teaches wherein the processor execute an artificial intelligence (AI) model (see at least [0022-0024], [0027], [0040-0041], and [0073]); generating, via an application associated with a vehicle an instruction to control the vehicle based on an upcoming event using the AI model, wherein the instruction is not yet available to an occupant of the vehicle (see at least [0022-0024], [0027], [0040-0041], and [0073], Kothart teaches using AI to generate alternative vehicle actions that the driver is likely to select. This implies thatthe instructions have not been available to the occupant and are decided to be likely to be selected by the occupant.); and in response to the tag indicator being present, confirming the upcoming event is beginning based on retrieved sensor data (see at least [0022-0024], [0027], [0040-0041], and [0073]); and in response to the confirming, displaying the instruction on a display device of the vehicle via the application (see at least [0022-0024], [0027], [0040-0041], and [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Raichelgauz with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Kothart wherein the processor execute an artificial intelligence (AI) model generating, via an application associated with a vehicle an instruction to control the vehicle based on an upcoming event; and in response to the tag indicator being present, confirming the upcoming event is beginning based on retrieved sensor data; and in response to the confirming, displaying the instruction on a display device of the vehicle via the application. This would be done to increase the safety of passengers travelling in the vehicle (see Kothart paragraphs 0003-0004).
However, Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart do not specifically wherein the parsing uses the AI model, wherein the tag identifies that the statement must be confirmed by live data or recent data; using the AI model, comparing the statement to other statements in a knowledge base to generate a score; confirming the upcoming event is beginning based on the score satisfying a threshold, and on the sensor data.
Pronovost teaches wherein the parsing uses the AI model (see at least [0123], [0167], and [0172]), wherein the tag identifies that the statement must be confirmed by live data or recent data (see at least [0069-0071], [0123], [0167], and [0172]); using the AI model, comparing the statement to other statements in a knowledge base to generate a score (see at least [0069-0071], [0123], [0167], and [0172]); confirming the upcoming event is beginning based on the score satisfying a threshold, and on the sensor data (see at least [0070], [0074-0075], [0077-0078], [0094], and [0099-0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Pronovost wherein the parsing uses the AI model, wherein the tag identifies that the statement must be confirmed by live data or recent data; using the AI model, comparing the statement to other statements in a knowledge base to generate a score; confirming the upcoming event is beginning based on the score satisfying a threshold, and on the sensor data. This would be done to accurately predict future object trajectories and safely operate the vehicle in the vicinity of the object (see Pronovost para 0001).
With respect to claim 2, Raichelgauz discloses comprising identifying a match between a portion of the statement and a portion of the other statements based on the comparing (see at least [0021], [0056], [0062], and [0065]; and assigning the score to the match (see at least [0021], [0036-0037], [0055-0057], [0067], [claims 8 and 18]).
With respect to claim 5, Raichelgauz discloses wherein the retrieving of the sensor data comprises retrieving the sensor data from a sensor of the vehicle during a driving event (see at least [0021], [0026], [0037-0038], [0056], [0062], and [0065]); and storing the sensor data in the knowledge base (see at least [0021], [0026], [0037-0038], [0056], [0062], and [0065]).
With respect to claims 8, 9, and 12, they are directed to system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 2, and 5. As such, claims 8, 9, and 12 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1, 2, and 5 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 15, 16, and 19, they are directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 2, and 5. As such, claims 15, 16, and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1, 2, and 5 and are incorporated herein.
Claims 3, 6-7, 10, 13-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichelgauz et al (US 20170262453 A1) in view of Kothart (US 20200117187A1) in view of Pronovost (US 20240211797 A1) in view of Carlos et al (US 20240198938 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart do not specifically teach responsive to an accuracy score for the portion of the statement being below the threshold, querying an additional knowledge base and performing operation comparing the portion to additional statements in the additional knowledge base.
Pronovost teaches responsive to an accuracy score for the portion of the statement being below the threshold, querying an additional knowledge base and performing operation comparing the portion to additional statements in the additional knowledge base (see at least [0070], [0074-0075], [0077-0078], [0094], and [0099-0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Pronovost responsive to an accuracy score for the portion of the statement being below the threshold, querying an additional knowledge base and performing operation comparing the portion to additional statements in the additional knowledge base. This would be done to accurately predict future object trajectories and safely operate the vehicle in the vicinity of the object (see Pronovost para 0001).
Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart and Pronovost do not specifically disclose responsive to an accuracy score for the portion of the statement being below the threshold, assigning an additional accuracy score to matches between the portion and the additional statements.
Carlos teaches responsive to the first match accuracy score being below an accuracy threshold (see at least [0037], [0137-0138], [0144-0145], and [0174-0175[), querying an additional knowledgebase and performing an additional comparing operation; and assigning an additional accuracy score to matches between the portion and the additional statements (see at least [0037], [0137-0138], [0144-0145], and [0174-0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart and Pronovost with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Carlos wherein responsive to the first match accuracy score being below an accuracy threshold, querying an additional knowledgebase and performing an additional comparing operation; and assigning a further match accuracy score to further identified matches. This would be done for improving the operation of, and computational efficiency associated with, a vehicle (see Carlos para 0020).
With respect to claim 6, Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart do not specifically disclose determining that a portion of the statement is false based on the sensor data.
Carlos teaches determining that a portion of the statement is false based on the sensor data (see at least [0105-0106], [0149], and [0174-0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Carlos of determining that a portion of the statement is false based on the sensor data. This would be done for improving the operation of, and computational efficiency associated with, a vehicle (see Carlos para 0020).
With respect to claim 7, Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart do not specifically disclose modifying a knowledge base by removing the portion that is false to create a modified knowledge base; and creating a response based on the modified knowledge base.
Carlos teaches modifying a knowledgebase by removing the false statement (see at least [0105-0106], [0149], and [0174-0175]); and creating a response based on the modified knowledgebase (see at least [0105-0106], [0149], and [0174-0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Raichelgauz as modified by Kothart with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Carlos of modifying a knowledge base by removing the portion that is false to create a modified knowledge base; and creating a response based on the modified knowledge base. This would be done for improving the operation of, and computational efficiency associated with, a vehicle (see Carlos para 0020).
With respect to claims 10, 13, and 14, they are directed to system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 3, 6, and 7. As such, claims 10, 13, and 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 3, 6, and 7 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 17 and 20, they are directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method system claims 10 and 13. As such, claims 17 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 10 and 13 and are incorporated herein.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667