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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/544,894, filed on 12/05/2025.
Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been examined.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 1 claims a system comprising one or more processors and memories. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as an apparatus. An apparatus is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 7 claims a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability. Claim 20 claims one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category for patentability. Further, the claim is in conformity with the Kappos Memorandum of 2010 regarding medium claims, as it contains the phrase “non-transitory.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claims 1, 7, and 20 are directed to “for respective vehicles of a plurality of vehicles, determining or receiving an urgency metric associated with the vehicle, the urgency metric being indicative of an urgency in which to perform a task associated with the vehicle, and based on a contact metric associated with the vehicle, the contact metric being based on a probability of the vehicle contacting one or more objects in an environment around the vehicle, the contract metric based at least in part on a predicted future path or action, determined by the vehicle, of one or more of the vehicle or the one or more objects, determining or receiving a length of time associated with performing the task for the vehicle, the task being performed by an operator of one or more operators, the one or more operators being located remote from the plurality of vehicles and being responsible for monitoring and/or controlling the plurality of vehicles, the task associated with providing, by the operator, assistance to the vehicle in how to move through an environment, and determining a preferred order in which the one or more operators are to perform the tasks based on the lengths of time and the urgency metrics associated with the plurality of vehicles.” Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely a mental process. A human operator with access to the vehicle data and operator data could calculate an urgency metric based on a probability, calculate a length of time associated with performing a task, and determine a preferred order for performing tasks based on the other calculations. This could all be done as part of a mental process in which the data is analyzed using basic mathematics and a judgment or decision is made. The processor simply automates the mental process using a computer. Therefore, the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea, namely a mental process.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include “one or more processors,” and “one or more…media.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The claims as amended also recite “sensor data recorded by one or more sensors of the vehicle.” However, the sensor data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor data is described as having been collected by a sensor and is used to calculate the contract metric. Therefore, the sensor data being from a sensor on the vehicle is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims as amended also recite the limitation “transmitting a signal to a first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles based at least in part on determining the preferred order the signal configured to cause the first vehicle to be controlled based at least in part on the signal.” However, it is clear that this is a signal transmittal step. The rest of the limitation describes the intended use of the signal. The earlier part of the claim and the applicant’s filed specification make clear that the transmitted signal is not causing actual positively recited moving of the vehicle, as the operator directs the instructing and moving of the vehicle based on the preferred order, but the signal is simply being transmitted and contains instructions that will cause the vehicle to be able to be controlled by the operator. But, there is no actual controlling going on or moving of the vehicle. It is a transmittal step. Therefore, the limitation is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network,” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality. The transmittal step simply sends instructions, and such as limitation is also listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i-ii) as an example of conventional computer functioning. Therefore, this additional limitation is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include “one or more processors,” and “one or more…media.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims as amended also recite “sensor data recorded by one or more sensors of the vehicle.” The sensor data is described as having been collected by a sensor and is used to calculate the contract metric. Therefore, this additional limitation is considered conventional computer functioning and the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the vehicle arts to use data collected from a vehicle sensor in further analysis and calculations. Therefore, the sensor data being from a sensor on the vehicle is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims as amended also recite the limitation “transmitting a signal to a first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles based at least in part on determining the preferred order the signal configured to cause the first vehicle to be controlled based at least in part on the signal.” However, it is clear that this is a signal transmittal step. The rest of the limitation describes the intended use of the signal. The earlier part of the claim and the applicant’s filed specification make clear that the transmitted signal is not causing actual positively recited moving of the vehicle, as the operator directs the instructing and moving of the vehicle based on the preferred order, but the signal is simply being transmitted and contains instructions that will cause the vehicle to be able to be controlled by the operator. But, there is no actual controlling going on or moving of the vehicle. It is a transmittal step. Therefore, the limitation is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i-ii) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network,” citing Symantec, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, and buySAFE v Google). Therefore, this additional limitation is not considered significantly more.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claim steps in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for calculating an urgency metric based on a probability, calculating a length of time associated with performing a task, and determining a preferred order for performing tasks based on the other calculations. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claim 8 is considered part of the abstract idea, as determining a contact metric and urgency metric does not change the analysis as both can be done as part of the mental process. Claim 9 is considered part of the abstract idea, as the characteristics the urgency metric calculation is based on does not change the analysis. Claim 10 is considered part of the abstract idea, as the location based on specific data does not change the analysis as there is no active location technology determining the location. Claim 11 is considered part of the abstract idea as it details the determination of the preferred order. Claims 12 and 16 are considered part of the abstract idea, as determining a resolution time and a task cost can be performed as part of the mental process. Claim 13 is considered part of the mental process as it simply recites what the resolution time calculation is further based on. Claim 14 is considered part of the abstract idea as the determining steps can be done as part of a mental process. Claim 15 recites determining preferred orders which can be done as part of the mental process. Claims 17 and 19 are considered “receiving and/or processing of data,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning, citing Symantec, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, and buySAFE v Google. Claim 18 is considered part of the abstract idea, as the assigning, absent further detail, can be done as part of a mental process.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 6-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanghi, et al., Patent No. 10,423,934 B1 in view of Paul, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0102518 A1 and in further view of Schleede, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0135026 A1 and in further view of Hirano, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0355827 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 20, Zanghi teaches:
A method (system) (media)… comprising:
for respective vehicles of a plurality of vehicles (see Column 3, lines 4-8 in which the vehicles analyzed are a plurality of vehicles of a fleet of autonomous vehicles):
determining an urgency associated with the vehicle, the urgency being indicative of urgency in which to perform a task associated with the vehicle (see Column 11, lines 5-13 in which severity of maintenance need for particular vehicles is used to prioritize and schedule the vehicles for maintenance; see also Column 13, lines 6-17)
determining a length of time associated with performing the task for the vehicle, the task being performed by an operator of one or more operators, the one or more operators being located remote from the plurality of vehicles and being responsible for monitoring and/or controlling the plurality of vehicles (see Column 2, lines 1-28 and Column 12, line 57-Column 13, line 23 in which time to perform the task for the vehicle by a nearby technician remote from the vehicle but that is associated with the fleet of vehicles is identified in order to prioritize and schedule maintenance of the vehicles)
determining the one or more operators are to perform the tasks based on the lengths of time and the urgency metrics associated with the plurality of vehicles (see Column 2, lines 1-28, Column 11, lines 5-13, and Column 12, line 57-Column 13, line 23 as above)
Zanghi, however, does not appear to specify:
determining an urgency metric
determining a preferred order in which the one or more operators are to perform the tasks… associated with the plurality of vehicles
Paul teaches:
determining an urgency metric (see at least [0016]-[0018] and [0032]-[0033] in which a prioritization score based on urgency of various conditions is used for scheduling maintenance, and therefore acts as an urgency metric for scheduling of maintenance)
determining a preferred order in which the one or more operators are to perform the tasks… associated with the plurality of vehicles (see at least [0018] and [0034] in which a prioritization ranking for order of scheduling is determined based on the prioritization scores)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Paul with Zanghi because Zanghi already teaches urgency as a consideration for scheduling of maintenance, and an urgency metric allows for easier comparison between vehicles and situations, making for more efficient decisions.
Zanghi and Paul, however, does not appear to specify:
and based on a contact metric associated with the vehicle, the contact metric being based on a probability of the vehicle contacting one or more objects in an environment around the vehicle, the contact metric based at least in part on a predicted future path or action, determined by the vehicle, of one or more of the vehicle or the one or more objects based at least in part on sensor data recorded by one or more sensors of the vehicle- claim 1 only
transmitting a signal to a first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles based at least in part on determining the preferred order, the signal configured to cause the first vehicle to be controlled at least in part on the signal
Schleede teaches:
and based on a contact metric associated with the vehicle, the contact metric being based on a probability of the vehicle contacting one or more objects in an environment around the vehicle, the contact metric based at least in part on a predicted future path or action, determined by the vehicle, of one or more of the vehicle or the one or more objects based at least in part on sensor data recorded by one or more sensors of the vehicle- claim 1 only (see Figure 1, [0009], [0014]-[0015], and [0024]-[0030] in which the collision probability is a contact metric, and the collision probability is with such as objects in the driving environment of the autonomous vehicle; see also Abstract, Figure 6, and [0097]-[0106] in which the sensors of the vehicle detect a predicted future path which will include contact with an object)
transmitting a signal to a first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, the signal configured to cause the first vehicle to be controlled at least in part on the signal (see Abstract, Figure 3 #334, Figure 6 #618, [0061], and [0106])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Schleede with Zanghi and Paul because Zanghi already teaches determination of vehicle maintenance needs and uses sensors to determine various vehicle conditions, and determination of a contact metric including sensor data of a predicted future contact with an object allows for determining likely probability of contact with an object which would allow for timely scheduling of appropriate maintenance or addressing of an alternate path accordingly. While Schleede does not teach the determining and transmittal based on a preferred order, Paul has already been shown to teach prioritization between the addressing of different vehicle needs and ranking the order, and the teachings of Paul could easily be applied to the prioritization of the controlling of the vehicles in Schleede.
Zanghi, Paul, and Schleede, however, does not appear to specify:
the task associated with providing, by the operator, assistance to the vehicle in how to move through an environment
Hirano teaches:
the task associated with providing, by the operator, assistance to the vehicle in how to move through an environment (see at least Abstract, Figure 1, and [0038])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Hirano with Zanghi, Paul, and Schleede because Schleede already teaches automatic control of autonomous vehicles when a predicted future path can lead to contact of an object or other issue, and an operator making direct contact with the vehicle and giving aid would allow for a more personalized and real-time decision making based on the particular situation of the vehicle by a human being.
**The examiner notes that Hirano also teaches a preferred order in such as [0013]-[0014] and also references JP2020-102159A in the background section, which teaches a preferred order of controlling autonomous vehicles based on an urgency determination. Therefore, the examiner considered using an updated 3-reference rejection, but in order to preserve the finality of the office action this was not done.**
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zanghi, Paul, Schleede, and Hirano teaches:
the method of claim 7
Zanghi further teaches:
wherein determining an urgency metric associated with the vehicle comprises determining the urgency metric based on conditions associated with the vehicle (see Column 11, lines 5-13 in which severity of maintenance need for particular vehicles is used to prioritize and schedule the vehicles for maintenance; see also Column 13, lines 6-17)
Schleede further teaches:
for respective vehicles of the plurality of vehicles:
determining a contact metric associated with the vehicle, the contact metric being
based on the probability of the vehicle contacting one or more objects in an environment around the vehicle, determining an urgency metric based on the contact metric (see Figure 1, [0009], [0014]-[0015], and [0024]-[0030] in which the collision probability is a contact metric, and the collision probability is with such as objects in the driving environment of the autonomous vehicle)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Schleede with Zanghi and Paul because Zanghi already teaches determination of vehicle maintenance needs and uses sensors to determine various vehicle conditions, and determination of a contact metric allows for determining likely probability of contact with an object which would allow for timely scheduling of appropriate maintenance accordingly.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the combination of Zanghi, Paul, Schleede, and Hirano teaches:
the method of claim 7…
Paul further teaches:
wherein determining an urgency metric associated with the vehicle comprises determining the urgency metric based on one or more of:
one or more characteristics of one or more passengers in the vehicle;
traffic conditions, a time of day, a location of the vehicle, a type of fault associated with the vehicle (see at least [0017]-[0019], [0033]-[0034], [0045] in which the prioritization score is based on such as a maintenance schedule, a time between maintenance, characteristics of the owner of the vehicle, a location, and a time of day)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Paul with Zanghi because Zanghi already teaches urgency as a consideration for scheduling of maintenance, and an urgency metric allows for easier comparison between vehicles and situations, making for more efficient decisions.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zanghi, Paul, Schleede, and Hirano teaches:
the method of claim 7
Zanghi further teaches:
wherein the location is based on one or more of:
a location of the vehicle relative to a junction, intersection or other road feature, a speed limit of a road on which the vehicle is located, a lane in which the vehicle is located, a number of lanes for travelling in the same direction as the vehicle (see Column 4, lines 10-31 in which the vehicle conditions including its location on a road segment on a map, which is considered the equivalent of the vehicle location relative to a junction or other road feature)
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the combination of Zanghi, Paul, Schleede, and Hirano teaches:
the method of claim 7…
Paul further teaches:
wherein determining a preferred order in which the one or more operators are to perform the tasks, comprises:
determining a plurality of different orders in which the one or more operators can perform the tasks associated with the plurality of vehicles (see [0018]-[0019] and [0032]-[0033] in which prioritized rankings based on the scores are determined)
for respective orders of the plurality of different orders, determining an order cost associated with the order (see [0045]-[0047] in which based on cost factors prioritized rankings can be altered when taking cost into consideration)
the order cost being based on: (i) the urgency metrics associated with the plurality of vehicles, (11) the lengths of time associated with performing the tasks, and (iii) the order in which the tasks are to be performed (see [0045]-[0047]; the examiner notes that length of time associated with performing the tasks has already been shown to be taught by Zanghi)
selecting, based on the order costs, the preferred order from the plurality of different orders (see [0017]-[0019], [0033]-[0034], and especially [0045]-[0047])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Paul with Zanghi because Zanghi already teaches urgency as a consideration for scheduling of maintenance, and an urgency metric allows for easier comparison between vehicles and situations, making for more efficient decisions, and prioritizing orders and then re-prioritizing if needed based on cost factors allows for the important consideration of cost when making the prioritization decisions, as most AV’s fleets are for profit or associated with a business, and revenue and cost factors are essential to businesses.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the combination of Zanghi, Paul, Schleede, and Hirano teaches:
the method of claim 11…
Paul further teaches:
wherein after selecting the preferred order, the method further comprises:
determining that an additional task associated with an additional vehicle is required to be performed by the one or more operators and determining where in the preferred order the additional task is to be performed (see [0044]-[0047] and [0051]-[0052])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Paul with Zanghi because Zanghi already teaches urgency as a consideration for scheduling of maintenance, and an urgency metric allows for easier comparison between vehicles and situations, making for more efficient decisions, and prioritizing orders and then re-prioritizing if needed based on cost factors allows for the important consideration of cost when making the prioritization decisions, as most AV’s fleets are for profit or associated with a business, and revenue and cost factors are essential to businesses.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zanghi, Paul, Schleede, and Hirano teaches:
the method of claim 7
Zanghi further teaches:
receiving data from respective vehicles of the plurality of vehicles at a system remote from the plurality of vehicles, wherein the urgency metrics for the respective vehicles are determined by the remote system based on the data and receiving, at the remote system, from respective vehicles of the plurality of vehicles, the urgency metrics associated with the respective vehicles (see Figures 2 and 7 and Column 7, line 1-Column 10, line 19 and Column 15, line 22-Column 16, line 7 which describe the remote system in detail; the examiner notes that the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 20 have already shown Zanghi and Paul to teach determination of urgency metrics and receiving from the vehicles various condition data)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Zanghi, Paul, Schleede, and Hirano teaches:
the method of claim 7
Zanghi further teaches:
receiving data from respective vehicles of the plurality of vehicles at a system remote from the plurality of vehicles, based on the data, determining by the remote system, that the respective vehicles of the plurality of vehicles require a task to be performed by an operator (see Figures 2 and 7 and Column 7, line 1-Column 10, line 19 and Column 15, line 22-Column 16, line 7 which describe the remote system in detail; the examiner notes that the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 20 have already shown Zanghi to teach that the respective vehicle requires a task to be performed by an operator)
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
The applicant has not put forth any specific arguments other than to state that the claims are eligible because of the limitations added by amendment. These amendments have been addressed in the updated 101 rejection above.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103:
The applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claims but are MOOT in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
The following prior art reference was not relied upon in this office action but is considered pertinent to the applicant’s invention:
Katushiro, Sakai. JP 2020-102159 A- teaches a preferred order of addressing controlling of autonomous vehicles in response to a problem such as being stuck against an object or in an intersection, the order based on urgency of needing to address the problem.
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626