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 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 03 November 2023 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because 1) “;” should be removed from the end of the sentence in block (208) in Fig. 2; 2) The sentence under the arrow 300 runs into the block (302) in Fig. 3 and covers the word “generating”; and 3) “tones” in block (308) in Fig.3 should be “tokens”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 7 and 18 should be amended to recite “wherein the trajectory decoder comprises M encoding layers, where [[N]] M is a positive integer” to be consistent with the “M encoding layers” in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 should be amended to recite “the one or more processors. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the first “determine/determining ...” limitation in each claim is indented too far in (e.g. the indent of the following/other limitations do not match the indent of the first limitation). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 should be amended to recite “one or more processors . Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “information obtained from the rasterized representation” in the second limitation of each claim. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the same information previously recited in the first limitation of each claim or not, if same then the corresponding limitation in the second limitation of each claim should be “the information obtained from the rasterized representation”.
Claim 10 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a query”. The connection or lack thereof between a query in claim 10 and the previously recited “one or more queries” in claim 1 is unclear, to the Examiner.
Claim 11 is indefinite because the preamble “An apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to implement a method, the processor configured to: ...” is missing a transitional phrase and therefore it is unclear, to the Examiner, whether the claim is meant to be open-ended or closed.
Claims 2-9, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 11 is directed to an apparatus and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-storage medium. Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 16 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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.
Independent claim 1 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 11 and 16 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method of trajectory prediction, comprising:
determining a first cross-attention between a vectorized representation of a road map near a vehicle and information obtained from a rasterized representation of an environment near the vehicle by processing through a first cross-attention stage;
determining a second cross-attention between a vectorized representation of a vehicle history and information obtained from the rasterized representation by processing through a second cross-attention stage;
operating a scene encoder on the first cross-attention and the second cross-attention;
operating a trajectory decoder on an output of the scene encoder;
generating one or more trajectory predictions by performing one or more queries on the trajectory decoder
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method of trajectory prediction, comprising:
determining a first cross-attention between a vectorized representation of a road map near a vehicle and information obtained from a rasterized representation of an environment near the vehicle by processing through a first cross-attention stage;
determining a second cross-attention between a vectorized representation of a vehicle history and information obtained from the rasterized representation by processing through a second cross-attention stage;
operating a scene encoder on the first cross-attention and the second cross-attention;
operating a trajectory decoder on an output of the scene encoder;
generating one or more trajectory predictions by performing one or more queries on the trajectory decoder
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of operating a scene encoder ... [and] operating a trajectory decoder ..., the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the operating steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and/or mere post solution action, which are form(s) of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1, 11 and 16 further recite the “[A computer-implemented method of trajectory prediction, comprising:] / [An apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to implement a method, the processor configured to:] / [A non-transitory computer-storage medium having process-executable code that, upon execution, causes one or more processor to implement a method, comprising:] ... by processing through a first cross-attention stage; ... by processing through a second cross-attention stage; ... by performing one or more queries on the trajectory decoder” which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent 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 using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of operating encoder and decoder ... are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. See 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), and 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), Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rami (US20230406360A1) in view of Myeong (US20250035448A1) in further view of Weiss (US20230040006A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rami discloses a computer-implemented method of trajectory prediction (see at least abstract), comprising: determining a first cross-attention between a representation of a road map near a vehicle and information obtained from a representation of an environment near the vehicle by processing through a first cross-attention stage (see at least Figures 2-5, [0077]-[0080], [0086]-[0092], [0097]-[0100] and [0107]-[0109]); determining a second cross-attention between a representation of a vehicle history and information obtained from the representation by processing through a second cross-attention stage (see at least Figures 2-5, [0011], [0014], [0026], [0055], [0059], [0077]-[0080], [0086]-[0092], [0097]-[0100], [0103] and [0107]-[0109]); operating a scene encoder on the first cross-attention and the second cross-attention (see at least Figure 2, Figure 3, [0018], [0062], [0063] and [0073]-[0081]); operating a trajectory decoder on an output of the scene encoder (see at least Figure 2, [0018], [0062]-[0068], [0082] and [0111]); generating one or more trajectory predictions by performing one or more queries on the trajectory decoder (see at least Figure 2, [0018], [0062]-[0070], [0079], [0082], [0085]-[0088] and [0109]-[0113]).
Rami fails to explicitly disclose the representation of the road map being a vectorized representation, the representation of the environment being a rasterized representation and the representation of the vehicle history being a vectorized representation.
Myeong teaches the representation of the road map being a vectorized representation and the representation of the environment being a rasterized representation (see at least Figure 7, [0038], [0050], [0054], [0059], [0069] and [0103]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Rami to incorporate the teachings of Myeong which teaches the representation of the road map being a vectorized representation and the representation of the environment being a rasterized representation since they are directed to vehicle systems using representations and incorporations of the teachings of Myeong would increase accuracy of the representations and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Weiss teaches the representation of the vehicle history being a vectorized representation (see at least [0067], [0080]-[0082], [0092] and [0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Rami as modified by Myeong to incorporate the teachings of Weiss which teaches the representation of the vehicle history being a vectorized representation since they are directed to vehicle systems using representations and incorporations of the teachings of Weiss would increase accuracy of the representations and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Rami fails to explicitly disclose wherein the information obtained from the rasterized representation comprises a multi-sourced, multi-grained feature map. However, Myeong teaches wherein the information obtained from the rasterized representation comprises a multi-sourced, multi-grained feature map (see at least Figure 7, [0050], [0054], [0059], [0069] and [0090]-[0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Rami to incorporate the teachings of Myeong which teaches wherein the information obtained from the rasterized representation comprises a multi-sourced, multi-grained feature map since they are directed to vehicle systems using representations and incorporations of the teachings of Myeong would increase accuracy of the representations and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 3, Rami as modified by Myeong and Weiss discloses wherein the information is further based on a lidar point cloud obtained from a sensor located on the vehicle (see at least Rami [0022], [0040], [0077]-[0080], [0086]-[0092], [0097]-[0100] and [0107]-[0109]).
Regarding claim 4, Rami as modified by Myeong and Weiss discloses wherein the rasterized representation comprises traffic signal information near the vehicle (see at least Rami [0014], [0017], [0026], [0053], [0057], [0074] and [0103]; see claim 1 above regarding the representation being a rasterized representation).
Regarding claim 5, Rami as modified by Myeong and Weiss discloses wherein the information comprises a raw camera image obtained by a camera on the vehicle (see at least Rami [0023]-[0025] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Rami as modified by Myeong and Weiss discloses wherein the scene encoder comprises N encoding layers, where N is a positive integer (see at least Rami [0003] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Rami as modified by Myeong and Weiss discloses wherein the trajectory decoder comprises M encoding layers, where N is a positive integer (see at least Rami [0067] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Rami as modified by Myeong and Weiss discloses wherein the generating the one or more trajectory predictions includes generating a probability associated with each trajectory prediction (see at least Rami [0065], [0068], [0072] and [0111]).
Regarding claim 9, Rami as modified by Myeong discloses wherein a Gaussian distribution is used for generating the probability associated with each trajectory prediction (see at least Rami [0065], [0068], [0071] and [0072]).
Rami as modified by Myeong does not explicitly disclose wherein a Gaussian mixture model is used for generating the probability associated with each trajectory prediction. However, Weiss teaches wherein a Gaussian mixture model is used for generating the probability associated with each trajectory prediction (see at least [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Rami as modified by Myeong to incorporate the teachings of Weiss which teaches wherein a Gaussian mixture model is used for generating the probability associated with each trajectory prediction since they are directed to vehicle systems using representations and incorporations of the teachings of Weiss would increase accuracy of the generation and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 11, Rami discloses an apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to implement a method, the processor configured to (see at least abstract and claim 24). The rest of claim 11 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 12-15, claims 12-15 are commensurate in scope with claims 2-5, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 2-5.
Regarding claim 16, Rami discloses a non-transitory computer-storage medium having process-executable code that, upon execution, causes one or more processor to implement a method, comprising (see at least abstract and claim 25). The rest of claim 16 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 17-20, claims 17-20 are commensurate in scope with claims 6-9, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 6-9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rami (US20230406360A1) in view of Myeong (US20250035448A1) in further view of Weiss (US20230040006A1) in yet further view of Biswas (US20240300526A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rami as modified by Myeong and Weiss does not explicitly disclose wherein the scene encoder generates at least one token used for a query that is responsive to a pedestrian pose or a pedestrian gaze. However, Biswas teaches wherein the scene encoder generates at least one token used for a query that is responsive to a pedestrian pose or a pedestrian gaze (see at least [0027], [0029], [0032], [0042], [0048], [0064], [0065], [0116], [0119], [0120] and [0131]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Rami as modified by Myeong and Weiss to incorporate the teachings of Biswas which teaches wherein the scene encoder generates at least one token used for a query that is responsive to a pedestrian pose or a pedestrian gaze since they are directed to vehicle systems using encoder(s) and incorporations of the teachings of Biswas would increase accuracy of the generation and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30a.m. - 6:30p.m..
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 at (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 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667