DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 November 2023 & 3 September 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note: In the IDS dated 27 November 2023, the alleged mailing date of 21 September 2022 was not provided on the submitted Written Opinion and Patentscope (as shown below) indicates a date of 12 January 2022. Thus, Examiner struck through the unverified date and added “(Year: 2022)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
371
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
<Screenshot of Documents Tab of WO/2022/248692 (PCT/EP2022/06445) in Patentscope>
Specification
The two instances of “manoeuvre” in the Para. beginning at Line 4 of Page 26 of specification appears to be a typographical error.
The last word (i.e., “claims”) of the last Para. of the last page (i.e., Page 28) of the specification appears to be missing a punctuation mark (i.e., ‘.’).
Appropriate correction is required.
Provisional Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 15 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 (dated: 8/20/2026) of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/564,496 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as illustrated with the assistance of the following table:
Instant Application
Reference Application
1. A computer implemented method of evaluating the performance of a target planner for an ego robot in a scenario, the method comprising:
receiving evaluation data for evaluating the performance of the target planner, the evaluation data generated by applying the target planner in the scenario from an initial scenario state to generate an actual ego trajectory taken by the ego robot in the scenario, the actual ego trajectory defined by at least one target trajectory parameter;
receiving comparison data, the comparison data generated by applying a comparison planner in the scenario from the same initial scenario state to generate a comparison ego trajectory representing the trajectory taken by a comparison ego robot in the scenario, the comparison ego trajectory comprising at least one comparison trajectory parameter;
determining at least one juncture point at which the comparison trajectory parameter differs from the actual trajectory parameter;
determining a difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter at the juncture point; and
comparing the determined difference with a threshold value to identify whether the juncture point is of significance.
15. (Text omitted as it is substantially similar to claim 1).
16. (Text omitted as it is substantially similar to claim 1).
6. The method according to claim 5 [Claim 5 italicized: The [computer implemented] method [of evaluating the performance of a target planner for an ego robot in a scenario] according to claim 1, comprising:
receiving evaluation data for evaluating the performance of the target planner, the evaluation data generated by applying the target planner in the scenario from an initial scenario state to generate an ego trajectory taken by the ego robot in the scenario, the ego trajectory defined by at least one actual trajectory parameter; and
receiving comparison data, the comparison data generated by applying the comparison planner in the scenario from the same initial scenario state to generate a comparison ego trajectory representing a trajectory taken by the comparison ego robot in the scenario, the comparison ego trajectory comprising at least one comparison trajectory parameter, wherein
determining the juncture point comprises determining a point at which the at least one comparison trajectory parameter differs from the at least one actual trajectory parameter], comprising:
determining a difference between the at least one actual trajectory parameter and the at least one comparison trajectory parameter at the juncture point; and
comparing the determined difference with a threshold value to identify whether the juncture point is of significance.
With respect to claims 1, 15, and 16, as can be seen in the table above, the reference claims disclose all of the limitations (or at least obvious variations of the limitations).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 17, 18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 (dated: 8/20/2026) of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/564,496 (reference application), and further in view of NYGAARD et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0349057 A1).
Regarding claim 2, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the trajectory parameter comprises position data of a path taken by the ego robot, wherein the difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter is determined as a distance, and wherein the threshold value represents a threshold distance”. However, NYGAARD is in the same field of autonomous vehicle control software (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD) and teaches wherein the trajectory parameter comprises position data of a path taken by the ego robot, wherein the difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter is determined as a distance, and wherein the threshold value represents a threshold distance (when one or more of a location, speed or change in speed of the planned trajectories diverge more than some threshold amount over some period of time, this may be considered a divergence point, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD; [the divergence/difference in location over a threshold is interpreted as corresponding to a distance]; See also a divergence point may be determined when the divergence or difference in distance between these locations is greater than or equal to 1 meter, Para. [0061] of NYGAARD).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application with the distance difference determining method of NYGAARD for the purpose of testing and validating autonomous vehicle control software before such software is actually used to control the vehicles in areas where the vehicles are interacting with other objects (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 3, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the trajectory parameter represents motion data of the trajectory and is selected from the group comprising: speed, acceleration, jerk and snap.
However, NYGAARD is in the same field of autonomous vehicle control software (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD) and teaches wherein the trajectory parameter represents motion data of the trajectory and is selected from the group comprising: speed, acceleration, jerk and snap (when one or more of a location, speed or change in speed of the planned trajectories diverge more than some threshold amount over some period of time, this may be considered a divergence point, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application with the distance difference determining method of NYGAARD for the purpose of testing and validating autonomous vehicle control software before such software is actually used to control the vehicles in areas where the vehicles are interacting with other objects (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 5, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the target planner comprises a first version of software implementing a planning stack under test, and the comparison data is received from a second version of software implementing the planning stack under test
However, NYGAARD is in the same field of autonomous vehicle control software (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD) and teaches wherein the target planner comprises a first version of software implementing a planning stack under test, and the comparison data is received from a second version of software implementing the planning stack under test (when running simulations using logged data, changing the behavior of the autonomous vehicle, such as by testing a different software version than that used to log the log data, Para. [0020] of NYGAARD; [testing a different software version than that used to log the data is interpreted as a first version of software implementing a trajectory [planning stack] and a second version of software implementing the trajectory]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application with the distance difference determining method of NYGAARD for the purpose of testing and validating autonomous vehicle control software before such software is actually used to control the vehicles in areas where the vehicles are interacting with other objects (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the target planner comprises a first planning stack under test of a first origin, and the comparison data is received from a second planning stack under test from a second origin.
However, NYGAARD is in the same field of autonomous vehicle control software (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD) and teaches wherein the target planner comprises a first planning stack under test of a first origin, and the comparison data is received from a second planning stack under test from a second origin (when running simulations using logged data, changing the behavior of the autonomous vehicle, such as by testing a different software version than that used to log the log data, can cause unintended consequences … for instance, after only a few seconds of a minute long simulation, the simulated vehicle may diverge in its behavior so much that the purpose of the simulation, to test reaction of the software to a specific situation, is lost because the situation is no longer achievable … this may occur because the agents (or other road users defined in the log data) in the simulation may interfere with the simulated vehicle, for instance, colliding with the simulated vehicle because those agents are behaving as they were observed doing so in the log data … typically, if the simulation results in a particular type of event, such as a particular type of behavior of the simulated vehicle and/or the simulated vehicle colliding with an agent or other object of the log data, then the simulation may be flagged for review by an operator, Para. [0020] of NYGAARD; [testing and flagged for review are interpreted as “under test” and the logged data from the actual roadway vehicle are interpreted as different origin [first origin] than the simulation [server] [second origin]; See also determining when one or more of a location, speed or change in speed of the planned trajectory of the first simulated vehicle and the planned trajectory of the vehicle from the log data diverge more than some threshold amount over some period of time, Para. [0004] of NYGAARD; [comparing the planned trajectory is interpreted as evaluating the performance of the planned trajectory’s planner]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application with the distance difference determining method of NYGAARD for the purpose of testing and validating autonomous vehicle control software before such software is actually used to control the vehicles in areas where the vehicles are interacting with other objects (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 7, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation data is generated by applying the target planner in a simulated scenario, in order to compute a series of ego plans that respond to changes in the first instance of the scenario, the first series of ego plans being implemented in the first instance of the scenario to cause changes in a first ego state, wherein the actual ego trajectory is defined by the changes in the first ego state over a duration of the first instance of the simulated scenario.
However, NYGAARD is in the same field of autonomous vehicle control software (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD) and teaches wherein the evaluation data is generated by applying the target planner in a simulated scenario, in order to compute a series of ego plans that respond to changes in the first instance of the scenario, the first series of ego plans being implemented in the first instance of the scenario to cause changes in a first ego state, wherein the actual ego trajectory is defined by the changes in the first ego state over a duration of the first instance of the simulated scenario (to make better use of the log data for simulations, the simulations may be “adjusted” based on how much the behavior of a simulated vehicle diverges from the behavior of the actual vehicle that was used to log the log data … for instance, the “handover time” or the point in which the software is given control of the simulated vehicle may be adjusted … for instance, simulations may be run identically as to how an actual vehicle drove in the log data up until some point of interest or sometime after that point of interest, Para. [0021] of NYGAARD; See also the divergence point may be determined by comparing the planned trajectory of the simulated vehicle with the planned trajectory of the actual vehicle identified in the log data, Para. [0022] of NYGAARD; [simulations are performed over a period of time; by the nature of how planners work, the adjustment corresponds to a series of ego plans that take into account state changes of the vehicle caused by earlier planning decisions]; [simulations also implies plural simulations]; See also when running simulations using logged data, changing the behavior of the autonomous vehicle, such as by testing a different software version than that used to log the log data, Para. [0020] & [0059] of NYGAARD).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application with the distance difference determining method of NYGAARD for the purpose of testing and validating autonomous vehicle control software before such software is actually used to control the vehicles in areas where the vehicles are interacting with other objects (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 8, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the comparison data is generated in the second instance of a simulated scenario by computing a series of reference plans that correspond to changes in the second instance of the simulated scenario, the series of reference plans being implemented in the second instance of the scenario to cause changes in the second ego state, wherein the comparison trajectory is defined by the changes in the second ego state over a duration of the second instance of the simulated scenario.
However, NYGAARD is in the same field of autonomous vehicle control software (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD) and teaches wherein the comparison data is generated in the second instance of a simulated scenario by computing a series of reference plans that correspond to changes in the second instance of the simulated scenario, the series of reference plans being implemented in the second instance of the scenario to cause changes in the second ego state, wherein the comparison trajectory is defined by the changes in the second ego state over a duration of the second instance of the simulated scenario (log data may also include “event” data identifying different types of events such as collisions with other objects, planned trajectories describing a planned geometry and/or speed for a potential path of the vehicle 100, actual locations of the vehicles at different times, actual orientations/headings of the vehicle at different times, actual speeds, accelerations and decelerations of the vehicle at different times, classifications of and responses to perceived objects, behavior predictions of perceived objects, status of various systems (such as acceleration, deceleration, perception, steering, signaling, routing, power, etc.) of the vehicle at different times including logged error, Para. [0050] of NYGAARD; [the planned trajectories based on behavior predictions of perceived objects is interpreted as dynamic, i.e., series of reference [trajectory] plans defined by changes in the vehicle/ego state over a duration]; [the planned trajectory is interpreted as different at different points, such as when the predicted perceived object behavior changes]; [simulations are performed over a period of time; by the nature of how planners work, the adjustment corresponds to a series of ego plans that take into account state changes of the vehicle caused by earlier planning decisions]; [simulations also implies plural simulations]; See also when running simulations using logged data, changing the behavior of the autonomous vehicle, such as by testing a different software version than that used to log the log data, Para. [0020] & [0059] of NYGAARD; See also duration of the period of time may be adjustable, Para. [0064] of NYGAARD).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application with the distance difference determining method of NYGAARD for the purpose of testing and validating autonomous vehicle control software before such software is actually used to control the vehicles in areas where the vehicles are interacting with other objects (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 9, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the evaluation data and comparison data comprises trace data from actual ego trajectories implemented by motion of the ego robot in the real world.
However, NYGAARD is in the same field of autonomous vehicle control software (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD) and teaches wherein at least one of the evaluation data and comparison data comprises trace data from actual ego trajectories implemented by motion of the ego robot in the real world (log data includes actual locations of the vehicles at different times, actual orientations/headings of the vehicle at different times, actual speeds, accelerations and decelerations of the vehicle at different times … these events and the sensor data may be used to “recreate” the vehicle's environment, including perceived objects, and behavior of a vehicle in a simulation, Para. [0050] of NYGAARD; See also duration of the period of time may be adjustable, Para. [0064] of NYGAARD).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application with the distance difference determining method of NYGAARD for the purpose of testing and validating autonomous vehicle control software before such software is actually used to control the vehicles in areas where the vehicles are interacting with other objects (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 10, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose comprising: determining that there are a plurality of juncture points between the actual ego trajectory and the comparison ego trajectory; and determining that at least a subset of the multiple juncture points are of significance.
However, NYGAARD is in the same field of autonomous vehicle control software (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD) and teaches comprising: determining that there are a plurality of juncture points between the actual ego trajectory and the comparison ego trajectory (e.g., Figs. 7-12 of NYGAARD and associated text, e.g., [0068] of NYGAARD: At the same time, a new or second divergence point [juncture point] may be determined for this second simulation as discussed above. A third simulation may be run; [0069] of NYGAARD: This process may be repeated until there are no additional points of divergence between the simulated vehicles and the actual vehicle that captured the log data over the course of the simulation and/or until the handover time would go beyond the duration of the original simulation); and determining that at least a subset of the multiple juncture points are of significance (e.g., Figs. 6-12 of NYGAARD and associated text, e.g., [0021] of NYGAARD, This point of interest may be a divergence point between a simulated vehicle in a simulation and the actual vehicle that captured the log data; [0023] of NYGAARD, However, because of the timing requirement for comparing planned trajectories, at least some divergences may not be identified as points of interest … The first point in time in the simulation at which the locations sufficiently diverge may be identified as a divergence point; see also [0059] & [0060] of NYGAARD).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application with the distance difference determining method of NYGAARD for the purpose of testing and validating autonomous vehicle control software before such software is actually used to control the vehicles in areas where the vehicles are interacting with other objects (Para. [0002] of NYGAARD).
As shown above, claim 6 of the co-pending reference application as modified by NYGAARD teaches all the limitations of claims 2, 3 and 5-10 of the instant application. Claims 2, 3 and 5-10 of the instant application, therefore, are not patently distinct from the reference 's claim 6 and as such are unpatentable for nonstatutory double patenting. Therefore, the instant application’s claims 2, 3 and 5-10 are provisionally rejected as indicated above.
Claim 17 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2; therefore, it is provisionally rejected under nonstatutory double patenting for the same reasons.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, it is provisionally rejected under nonstatutory double patenting for the same reasons.
Claim 20 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5; therefore, it is provisionally rejected under nonstatutory double patenting for the same reasons.
Claims 4 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 (dated: 8/20/2026) of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/564,496 (reference application), and further in view of JING et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0403032 A1).
Regarding claim 4, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the comparison data is received from a reference planner, which is configured to compute a series of ego plans in the scenario with greater processing resources than those used by the target planner to compute its series of ego plans.
JING, however, is in the field of path planning for autonomous driving/vehicles (Para. [0003] of JING) and teaches wherein the comparison data is received from a reference planner, which is configured to compute a series of ego plans in the scenario with greater processing resources than those used by the target planner to compute its series of ego plans (e.g., Fig. 1A, 3, 8A-D, and 11 of JING, along with associated text, e.g., [0039] of JING: FIG. 1A depicts a two-level path planning system 100, in accordance with some example embodiments. Offline optimal path library generator 110 [reference planner] generates an optimal path library based on a map of a particular area such as a parking lot including data points taken in a grid pattern in the area; [0056] of JING: Some embodiments perform an exhaustive search offline for an optimal vehicle driving trajectory for the predefined and discretized driving space. The search includes all feasible sets of vehicle location and orientation combinations in the state space grid map. The search is performed offline from the autonomous vehicle, and every possible driving state situation in the discretized state space can be pre-evaluated in preparation for an autonomous driving path; [0127] of JING: The offline server described in the present document may be implement using a hardware platform (e.g., FIG. 11) or may be implemented using distributed computing resources such as cloud computing resources. To be able to perform an exhaustive analysis of possible optimal paths, the offline server may use computational resources that are greater than the computational resources that are available to online, or on-board, computers in an autonomous vehicle; see also [0066] of JING).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application to include the reference planner of JING for the purpose of faster overall path planning and/or performing an exhaustive analysis of possible optimal paths (Paras. [0034] & [0035] of JING).
As shown above, claim 6 of the co-pending reference application as modified by JING teaches all the limitations of claims 4 of the instant application. Claim 4 of the instant application, therefore, is not patently distinct from the reference 's claim 6 and as such is unpatentable for nonstatutory double patenting. Therefore, the instant application’s claims 4 is provisionally rejected as indicated above.
Claim 19 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4; therefore, it is provisionally rejected under nonstatutory double patenting for the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 (dated: 8/20/2026) of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/564,496 (reference application), and further in view of TIN CHU et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,921,504).
Regarding claim 11, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose further comprising generating a juncture point score based on the number of juncture points in the subset.
TIN CHU, however, is in the field of simulation of autonomous driving vehicles (Abstract of TIN CHU) and teaches further comprising generating a juncture point score based on the number of juncture points in the subset (simulation computing system may determine metrics associated with one a plurality of performance attributes of the first autonomous controller 102, such as metrics associated with a number of determined points of a corridor corresponding to the vehicle path, velocities, accelerations, a number of determined actions, and the like, Col. 11, Line 67 – Col. 12, Line 9, of TIN CHU).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous vehicle juncture point determining method as in claim 6 of the reference application to include the autonomous vehicle scoring method of TIN CHU for the purpose of evaluate a performance of the updated system as compared to a previous version (Col. 1, Line 14-15, of TIN CHU).
Regarding claim 12, the reference application as modified by TIN CHU discloses the method according to claim 11 (as shown above), wherein the juncture point score takes into account, for each juncture point, the extent to which the difference between the trajectory parameters exceeds the threshold value (determines a difference 140 between a first value of a metric associated with a performance attribute 142 (e.g., maximum velocity difference) corresponding to the first autonomous controller 102 and a second value of the metric corresponding to the second autonomous controller. In various examples, the difference 140 may include a maximum difference associated with the metric in a respective scenario 144. In such examples, the difference 140 may represent a maximum deviation in performance between the two versions of the autonomous controller (e.g., candidate versus control, first autonomous controller 102 versus second autonomous controller, Col. 12, Line 60 – Col. 13, Line 5, of TIN CHU).
As shown above, claim 6 of the co-pending reference application as modified by TIN CHU teaches all the limitations of claims 11 and 12 of the instant application. Claims 11 and 12 of the instant application, therefore, are not patently distinct from the reference 's claim 6 and as such is unpatentable for nonstatutory double patenting. Therefore, the instant application’s claims 11 and 12 are provisionally rejected as indicated above.
Claims 13 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 (dated: 8/20/2026) of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/564,496 (reference application) in view of YAMAMOTO et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0289228 A1).
Regarding claim 13, claim 6 of the co-pending ‘496 reference application discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose comprising indicating a juncture point to a user by rendering a visual indicator on a graphical user interface.
YAMAMOTO, however, is in the field of autonomous driving/steering control of a vehicle (Para. [0004] of YAMAMOTO) and teaches comprising indicating a juncture point to a user by rendering a visual indicator on a graphical user interface (FIG. 3 illustrates an information presentation example when the own vehicle is approaching the end of the traffic congestion under the following conditions … the own vehicle is approaching a junction having a branch during high-speed autonomous driving, Para. [0144] of YAMAMOTO; See also graphic route display G12 is a route guiding figure display indicating the scheduled traveling route of the own vehicle in units of lanes on the graphic lane display G11, Para. [0125] of YAMAMOTO; [Examiner notes FIG. 3 shows scheduled traveling route G12 splitting into at least two branches]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous vehicle juncture point determining method to include the visual indicator rendering of YAMAMOTO for the purpose of user friendliness/customization (i.e., adapting whether or not to change lanes to artificial selection corresponding to the preference or circumstances of the occupant including the driver rather than automatic selection on the in-vehicle system side, Para. [0109] of YAMAMOTO).
Regarding claim 14, the reference application as modified by YAMAMOTO discloses the method according to claim 13 (as shown above), further comprising: rendering on the graphical user interface, a dynamic visualisation of the actual ego robot moving along a first path and the comparison ego robot moving along a second path, wherein the ego robot and the comparison ego robot are rendered as a single visual object in motion along the first and second paths prior to a juncture point (graphic route display G12 is a route guiding figure display indicating the scheduled traveling route of the own vehicle in units of lanes on the graphic lane display G11, Para. [0125] of YAMAMOTO; [Examiner notes FIG. 3 shows scheduled traveling route G12 [i.e., the ego robot and the comparison ego robot rendered as a single visual object in motion along the first and second paths prior to a junction path prior to splitting into at least two branches/paths]; See also FIG. 3 illustrates an information presentation example when the own vehicle is approaching the end of the traffic congestion under the following conditions … the own vehicle is approaching a junction having a branch during high-speed autonomous driving, Para. [0144] of YAMAMOTO); detecting the juncture point (detecting that the lane in which the own vehicle is traveling is congested, Para. [0039] of YAMAMOTO); and rendering the actual ego robot and the comparison ego robot as separate visual objects from the juncture point (graphic route display G12 is a route guiding figure display indicating the scheduled traveling route of the own vehicle in units of lanes on the graphic lane display G11, Para. [0125] of YAMAMOTO; [Examiner notes FIG. 3 shows scheduled traveling route G12 [i.e., the ego robot and the comparison ego robot rendered as a single visual object in motion along the first and second paths prior to a junction path prior to splitting into at least two branches/paths]; See also FIG. 3 illustrates an information presentation example when the own vehicle is approaching the end of the traffic congestion under the following conditions … the own vehicle is approaching a junction having a branch during high-speed autonomous driving, Para. [0144] of YAMAMOTO).
As shown above, claim 6 of the co-pending reference application as modified by YAMAMOTO teaches all the limitations of claims 13 and 14 of the instant application. Claims 13 and 14 of the instant application, therefore, are not patently distinct from the reference 's claim 6 and as such is unpatentable for nonstatutory double patenting. Therefore, the instant application’s claims 13 and 14 are provisionally rejected as indicated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 Step 1, Statutory Category?:
Yes: Claims 1-13 are directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes: Claims 15 and 17-20 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03.
No: Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.03. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer program may be interpreted as software per se and is not tied to any non-transitory medium or apparatus.
The USPTO is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See MPEP § 2111 (“In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.")).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer program covers software per se in view of the ordinary and customary meanings of computer program, particularly when the as-filed specification does not explicitly define “computer program”. See MPEP § 2111.01.
Independent claim 16 is a “computer program”, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, one could interpret to be software per se and thus non statutory.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers software per se, the claim as a whole does not fall within any statutory category (Step 1: NO) and thus is non-statutory, warranting a rejection for failure to claim statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.03(I) & (II).
Examiner suggests adding “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing the computer program”, which appears to be supported by the “third aspect” in the specification, to obviate the rejection based on Step 1 (discussed above).
Step 2A:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
A computer implemented method of evaluating the performance of a target planner for an ego robot in a scenario, the method comprising:
receiving evaluation data for evaluating the performance of the target planner, the evaluation data generated by applying the target planner in the scenario from an initial scenario state to generate an actual ego trajectory taken by the ego robot in the scenario, the actual ego trajectory defined by at least one target trajectory parameter;
receiving comparison data, the comparison data generated by applying a comparison planner in the scenario from the same initial scenario state to generate a comparison ego trajectory representing the trajectory taken by a comparison ego robot in the scenario, the comparison ego trajectory comprising at least one comparison trajectory parameter;
determining at least one juncture point at which the comparison trajectory parameter differs from the actual trajectory parameter;
determining a difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter at the juncture point; and
comparing the determined difference with a threshold value to identify whether the juncture point is of significance.
The limitations “evaluating the performance of a target planner for an ego robot in a scenario” comprising/by “determining at least one juncture point at which the comparison trajectory parameter differs from the actual trajectory parameter”, “determining a difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter at the juncture point” and “comparing the determined difference with a threshold value to identify whether the juncture point is of significance” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “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, a human could compare two trajectory parameters (e.g., a first speed of a first original/actual trajectory and a second speed of an alternate/proposed trajectory) to determine a difference between the first and second speeds, and subsequently compare the difference in speed with a speed threshold (Examiner’s Note: Claim 3 indicates the trajectory parameter could be “speed”). Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea(s).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “computer implemented” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “receiving evaluation data for evaluating the performance of the target planner, the evaluation data generated by applying the target planner in the scenario from an initial scenario state to generate an actual ego trajectory taken by the ego robot in the scenario, the actual ego trajectory defined by at least one target trajectory parameter” and “receiving comparison data, the comparison data generated by applying a comparison planner in the scenario from the same initial scenario state to generate a comparison ego trajectory representing the trajectory taken by a comparison ego robot in the scenario, the comparison ego trajectory comprising at least one comparison trajectory parameter” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering/inputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional element(s). The first type of additional element is the generic computer components (“computer implemented”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The second type of additional element (“retrieving … evaluation [and] comparison data”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or data outputting). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-13 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 15 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
15. An apparatus comprising: a processor; and a code memory, which stores computer executable instructions for execution by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive evaluation data for evaluating the performance of a target planner, the evaluation data generated by applying the target planner in a scenario from an initial scenario state to generate an actual ego trajectory taken by the ego robot in the scenario, the actual ego trajectory defined by at least one target trajectory parameter; and
receive comparison data, the comparison data generated by applying a comparison planner in the scenario from the same initial scenario state to generate a comparison ego trajectory representing the trajectory taken by a comparison ego robot in the scenario, the comparison ego trajectory comprising at least one comparison trajectory parameter,
wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer executable instructions to execute a juncture point determining function, the juncture point determining function configured to:
determine at least one juncture point at which the comparison trajectory parameter differs from the actual trajectory parameter;
determine a difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter at the juncture point; and
compare the determined difference with a threshold value to identify whether the juncture point is of significance.
The limitations “execute a juncture point determining function” comprising/by “determine at least one juncture point at which the comparison trajectory parameter differs from the actual trajectory parameter”, “determine a difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter at the juncture point” and “compare the determined difference with a threshold value to identify whether the juncture point is of significance” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “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, a human could compare two trajectory parameters (e.g., a first speed of a first original/actual trajectory and a second speed of an alternate/proposed trajectory) to determine a difference between the first and second speeds, and subsequently compare the difference in speed with a speed threshold (Examiner’s Note: Claim 3 indicates the trajectory parameter could be “speed”). In addition, executing a juncture point determining function can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Thus, claim 15 recites an abstract idea(s).
Claim 15 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “a processor; and a code memory, which stores computer executable instructions for execution by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to … execute the computer executable instructions” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “receive evaluation data for evaluating the performance of a target planner, the evaluation data generated by applying the target planner in a scenario from an initial scenario state to generate an actual ego trajectory taken by the ego robot in the scenario, the actual ego trajectory defined by at least one target trajectory parameter” and “receive comparison data, the comparison data generated by applying a comparison planner in the scenario from the same initial scenario state to generate a comparison ego trajectory representing the trajectory taken by a comparison ego robot in the scenario, the comparison ego trajectory comprising at least one comparison trajectory parameter” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering/inputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional element(s). The first type of additional element is the generic computer components (“processor”, “code memory”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The second type of additional element (“retrieve … evaluation [and] comparison data”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or data outputting). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 15 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 15 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 17-20 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 16 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
16. A computer program comprising computer executable instructions for execution by a processor to execute a juncture point determining function, wherein the juncture point function is configured to:
determine at least one juncture point at which a comparison trajectory parameter differs from an actual trajectory parameter;
determine a difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter at the juncture point; and
compare the determined difference with a threshold value to identify whether the juncture point is of significance, wherein the actual trajectory parameter defines an actual ago trajectory taken by an ego robot in a scenario, wherein the actual ego trajectory is generated by applying a target planner in the scenario from an initial scenario state, wherein the comparison trajectory parameter belongs to a comparison ego trajectory representing the trajectory taken by a comparison ego robot in the scenario, wherein the comparison ego trajectory is generated by applying a comparison planner in the scenario from the same initial scenario state.
The limitations “execute a juncture point determining function” comprising/by “determine at least one juncture point at which a comparison trajectory parameter differs from an actual trajectory parameter”, “determine a difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter at the juncture point” and “compare the determined difference with a threshold value to identify whether the juncture point is of significance, wherein the actual trajectory parameter defines an actual ago trajectory taken by an ego robot in a scenario, wherein the actual ego trajectory is generated by applying a target planner in the scenario from an initial scenario state, wherein the comparison trajectory parameter belongs to a comparison ego trajectory representing the trajectory taken by a comparison ego robot in the scenario, wherein the comparison ego trajectory is generated by applying a comparison planner in the scenario from the same initial scenario state” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “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, a human could compare two trajectory parameters (e.g., a first speed of a first original/actual trajectory and a second speed of an alternate/proposed trajectory) to determine a difference between the first and second speeds, and subsequently compare the difference in speed with a speed threshold (Examiner’s Note: Claim 3 indicates the trajectory parameter could be “speed”). In addition, executing a juncture point determining function can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Thus, claim 15 recites an abstract idea(s).
Claim 16 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “computer program comprising computer executable instructions for execution by a processor” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there is one type of additional element(s), which is the generic computer components (“computer program”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 16 is not patent subject matter eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-13 and 17-20
Regarding claims 2-13, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the trajectory parameter comprises position data of a path taken by the ego robot, wherein the difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter is determined as a distance, and wherein the threshold value represents a threshold distance”, claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the trajectory parameter represents motion data of the trajectory and is selected from the group comprising: speed, acceleration, jerk and snap”, claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the comparison data is received from a reference planner, which is configured to compute a series of ego plans in the scenario with greater processing resources than those used by the target planner to compute its series of ego plans”, claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the target planner comprises a first version of software implementing a planning stack under test, and the comparison data is received from a second version of software implementing the planning stack under test”, claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the target planner comprises a first planning stack under test of a first origin, and the comparison data is received from a second planning stack under test from a second origin”, claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the evaluation data is generated by applying the target planner in a simulated scenario, in order to compute a series of ego plans that respond to changes in the first instance of the scenario, the first series of ego plans being implemented in the first instance of the scenario to cause changes in a first ego state, wherein the actual ego trajectory is defined by the changes in the first ego state over a duration of the first instance of the simulated scenario”, claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the comparison data is generated in the second instance of a simulated scenario by computing a series of reference plans that correspond to changes in the second instance of the simulated scenario, the series of reference plans being implemented in the second instance of the scenario to cause changes in the second ego state, wherein the comparison trajectory is defined by the changes in the second ego state over a duration of the second instance of the simulated scenario”, claim 9 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein at least one of the evaluation data and comparison data comprises trace data from actual ego trajectories implemented by motion of the ego robot in the real world”, claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “comprising: determining that there are a plurality of juncture points between the actual ego trajectory and the comparison ego trajectory; and determining that at least a subset of the multiple juncture points are of significance”, claim 11 depends from claim 10 and further recites: “further comprising generating a juncture point score based on the number of juncture points in the subset”, claim 12 depends from claim 11 and further recites: “wherein the juncture point score takes into account, for each juncture point, the extent to which the difference between the trajectory parameters exceeds the threshold value” and claim 13 depends from claim 10 and further recites: “comprising indicating a juncture point to a user by rendering a visual indicator on a graphical user interface”.
These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which these claims depend. The bolded portion of the additional features are considered to further clarify the details of the mathematical concepts and/or the human’s mental activity (e.g., with pen and paper). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). In addition, the not bolded features of claims 2-9 are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/inputting, which cannot provide an inventive concept, and is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g); See also MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as 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. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”)). Also, the “graphical user interface” of claim 13 can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claims 2-13 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 17 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 19 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 20 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim 14 is indicated as eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 abstract idea analysis (by intentional omission from the § 101 rejection(s) above).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NYGAARD et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0349057 A1).
Regarding claim 1, NYGAARD discloses a computer implemented method of evaluating the performance of a target planner for an ego robot in a scenario (method of testing software for operating a vehicle in an autonomous driving mode, Para. [0003] of NYGAARD; [autonomous/self-driving vehicle is interpreted as corresponding to an ego vehicle]; See also determining when one or more of a location, speed or change in speed of the planned trajectory of the first simulated vehicle and the planned trajectory of the vehicle from the log data diverge more than some threshold amount over some period of time, Para. [0004] of NYGAARD; [comparing the planned trajectory is interpreted as evaluating the performance of the planned trajectory’s planner]), the method comprising: receiving evaluation data for evaluating the performance of the target planner, the evaluation data generated by applying the target planner in the scenario from an initial scenario state to generate an actual ego trajectory taken by the ego robot in the, the actual ego trajectory defined by at least one target trajectory parameter scenario (the log data may be compared with the results of the simulation in order to determine a divergence point … for instance, a divergence point may be determined by comparing one or more characteristics of the simulated vehicle with one or more characteristics of the actual vehicle (in the example above, vehicle 100) from the log data … the divergence point may be determined by comparing the planned trajectory of the simulated vehicle with the planned trajectory of the actual vehicle identified in the log data … each planned trajectory may correspond to a combined speed and geometry of a future path or individual geometry and speed profile components, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD; [results of the simulation including the planned trajectory correspond to evaluation data [applying the target planner to generate an actual ego trajectory taken by the ego robot in the scenario]]; [although reception of this data is not explicitly recited, reception of the data is a necessary/inherent step in order to be able to perform the comparison]; [trajectory geometry and speed profile are target trajectory parameters]); receiving comparison data, the comparison data generated by applying a comparison planner in the scenario from the same initial scenario state to generate a comparison ego trajectory representing the trajectory taken by a comparison ego robot in the scenario, the comparison ego trajectory comprising at least one comparison trajectory parameter (the log data may be compared with the results of the simulation in order to determine a divergence point … for instance, a divergence point may be determined by comparing one or more characteristics of the simulated vehicle with one or more characteristics of the actual vehicle (in the example above, vehicle 100) from the log data … the divergence point may be determined by comparing the planned trajectory of the simulated vehicle with the planned trajectory of the actual vehicle identified in the log data … each planned trajectory may correspond to a combined speed and geometry of a future path or individual geometry and speed profile components, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD; [the log data including the planned trajectory of the actual vehicle correspond to comparison data [applying a comparison planner to generate a comparison ego trajectory taken by a comparison ego robot in the scenario]]; [although reception of this data is not explicitly recited, reception of the data is a necessary/inherent step in order to be able to perform the comparison]; [trajectory geometry and speed profile are target trajectory parameters]); determining at least one juncture point at which the comparison trajectory parameter differs from the actual trajectory parameter (a divergence point may be determined, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD); determining a difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter at the juncture point (when one or more of a location, speed or change in speed of the planned trajectories diverge more than some threshold amount over some period of time, this may be considered a divergence point, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD); and comparing the determined difference with a threshold value to identify whether the juncture point is of significance (when one or more of a location, speed or change in speed of the planned trajectories diverge more than some threshold amount over some period of time, this may be considered a divergence point, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 2, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the trajectory parameter comprises position data of a path taken by the ego robot, wherein the difference between the actual trajectory parameter and the comparison trajectory parameter is determined as a distance, and wherein the threshold value represents a threshold distance (when one or more of a location, speed or change in speed of the planned trajectories diverge more than some threshold amount over some period of time, this may be considered a divergence point, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD; [the divergence/difference in location over a threshold is interpreted as corresponding to a distance]; See also a divergence point may be determined when the divergence or difference in distance between these locations is greater than or equal to 1 meter, Para. [0061] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 3, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the trajectory parameter represents motion data of the trajectory and is selected from the group comprising: speed, acceleration, jerk and snap (when one or more of a location, speed or change in speed of the planned trajectories diverge more than some threshold amount over some period of time, this may be considered a divergence point, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 5, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the target planner comprises a first version of software implementing a planning stack under test, and the comparison data is received from a second version of software implementing the planning stack under test (when running simulations using logged data, changing the behavior of the autonomous vehicle, such as by testing a different software version than that used to log the log data, Para. [0020] of NYGAARD; [testing a different software version than that used to log the data is interpreted as a first version of software implementing a trajectory [planning stack] and a second version of software implementing the trajectory]; [the simulated and logged/actual planned trajectories are mapped above with reference to claim 1]).
Regarding claim 6, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the target planner comprises a first planning stack under test of a first origin, and the comparison data is received from a second planning stack under test from a second origin (when running simulations using logged data, changing the behavior of the autonomous vehicle, such as by testing a different software version than that used to log the log data, can cause unintended consequences … for instance, after only a few seconds of a minute long simulation, the simulated vehicle may diverge in its behavior so much that the purpose of the simulation, to test reaction of the software to a specific situation, is lost because the situation is no longer achievable … this may occur because the agents (or other road users defined in the log data) in the simulation may interfere with the simulated vehicle, for instance, colliding with the simulated vehicle because those agents are behaving as they were observed doing so in the log data … typically, if the simulation results in a particular type of event, such as a particular type of behavior of the simulated vehicle and/or the simulated vehicle colliding with an agent or other object of the log data, then the simulation may be flagged for review by an operator, Para. [0020] of NYGAARD; [testing and flagged for review are interpreted as “under test” and the logged data from the actual roadway vehicle are interpreted as different origin [first origin] than the simulation [server] [second origin]; See also determining when one or more of a location, speed or change in speed of the planned trajectory of the first simulated vehicle and the planned trajectory of the vehicle from the log data diverge more than some threshold amount over some period of time, Para. [0004] of NYGAARD; [comparing the planned trajectory is interpreted as evaluating the performance of the planned trajectory’s planner]).
Regarding claim 7, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the evaluation data is generated by applying the target planner in a simulated scenario, in order to compute a series of ego plans that respond to changes in the first instance of the scenario, the first series of ego plans being implemented in the first instance of the scenario to cause changes in a first ego state, wherein the actual ego trajectory is defined by the changes in the first ego state over a duration of the first instance of the simulated scenario (to make better use of the log data for simulations, the simulations may be “adjusted” based on how much the behavior of a simulated vehicle diverges from the behavior of the actual vehicle that was used to log the log data … for instance, the “handover time” or the point in which the software is given control of the simulated vehicle may be adjusted … for instance, simulations may be run identically as to how an actual vehicle drove in the log data up until some point of interest or sometime after that point of interest, Para. [0021] of NYGAARD; See also the divergence point may be determined by comparing the planned trajectory of the simulated vehicle with the planned trajectory of the actual vehicle identified in the log data, Para. [0022] of NYGAARD; [simulations are performed over a period of time; by the nature of how planners work, the adjustment corresponds to a series of ego plans that take into account state changes of the vehicle caused by earlier planning decisions]; [simulations also implies plural simulations]; See also when running simulations using logged data, changing the behavior of the autonomous vehicle, such as by testing a different software version than that used to log the log data, Para. [0020] & [0059] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 8, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the comparison data is generated in the second instance of a simulated scenario by computing a series of reference plans that correspond to changes in the second instance of the simulated scenario, the series of reference plans being implemented in the second instance of the scenario to cause changes in the second ego state, wherein the comparison trajectory is defined by the changes in the second ego state over a duration of the second instance of the simulated scenario (log data may also include “event” data identifying different types of events such as collisions with other objects, planned trajectories describing a planned geometry and/or speed for a potential path of the vehicle 100, actual locations of the vehicles at different times, actual orientations/headings of the vehicle at different times, actual speeds, accelerations and decelerations of the vehicle at different times, classifications of and responses to perceived objects, behavior predictions of perceived objects, status of various systems (such as acceleration, deceleration, perception, steering, signaling, routing, power, etc.) of the vehicle at different times including logged error, Para. [0050] of NYGAARD; [the planned trajectories based on behavior predictions of perceived objects is interpreted as dynamic, i.e., series of reference [trajectory] plans defined by changes in the vehicle/ego state over a duration]; [the planned trajectory is interpreted as different at different points, such as when the predicted perceived object behavior changes]; [simulations are performed over a period of time; by the nature of how planners work, the adjustment corresponds to a series of ego plans that take into account state changes of the vehicle caused by earlier planning decisions]; [simulations also implies plural simulations]; See also when running simulations using logged data, changing the behavior of the autonomous vehicle, such as by testing a different software version than that used to log the log data, Para. [0020] & [0059] of NYGAARD; See also duration of the period of time may be adjustable, Para. [0064] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 9, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), wherein at least one of the evaluation data and comparison data comprises trace data from actual ego trajectories implemented by motion of the ego robot in the real world (log data includes actual locations of the vehicles at different times, actual orientations/headings of the vehicle at different times, actual speeds, accelerations and decelerations of the vehicle at different times … these events and the sensor data may be used to “recreate” the vehicle's environment, including perceived objects, and behavior of a vehicle in a simulation, Para. [0050] of NYGAARD; See also duration of the period of time may be adjustable, Para. [0064] of NYGAARD).
Regarding claim 10, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), comprising: determining that there are a plurality of juncture points between the actual ego trajectory and the comparison ego trajectory (e.g., Figs. 7-12 of NYGAARD and associated text, e.g., [0068] of NYGAARD: At the same time, a new or second divergence point [juncture point] may be determined for this second simulation as discussed above. A third simulation may be run; [0069] of NYGAARD: This process may be repeated until there are no additional points of divergence between the simulated vehicles and the actual vehicle that captured the log data over the course of the simulation and/or until the handover time would go beyond the duration of the original simulation); and determining that at least a subset of the multiple juncture points are of significance (e.g., Figs. 6-12 of NYGAARD and associated text, e.g., [0021] of NYGAARD, This point of interest may be a divergence point between a simulated vehicle in a simulation and the actual vehicle that captured the log data; [0023] of NYGAARD, However, because of the timing requirement for comparing planned trajectories, at least some divergences may not be identified as points of interest … The first point in time in the simulation at which the locations sufficiently diverge may be identified as a divergence point; see also [0059] & [0060] of NYGAARD).
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as recited in method claim 1 in terms of an apparatus; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), mutatis mutandis, for the same reasons. See also NYGAARD teaches a processor; and a code memory, which stores computer executable instructions for execution by the processor (memory 130 stores information accessible by the one or more processors 120, including instructions 134 and data 132 that may be executed or otherwise used by the processor 120., Para. [0028] of NYGAARD).
Claim 16 has substantially similar limitations as recited in method claim 1 in terms of a computer program; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), mutatis mutandis, for the same reasons. See also NYGAARD teaches computer program comprising computer executable instructions for execution by a processor to execute a juncture point determining function (memory 130 stores information accessible by the one or more processors 120, including instructions 134 and data 132 that may be executed or otherwise used by the processor 120., Para. [0028] of NYGAARD; See also a divergence point may be determined, Para. [0059] of NYGAARD).
Claim 17 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the same reasons.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the same reasons.
Claim 20 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over NYGAARD et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0349057 A1) in view of JING et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0403032 A1).
Regarding claim 4, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the comparison data is received from a reference planner, which is configured to compute a series of ego plans in the scenario with greater processing resources than those used by the target planner to compute its series of ego plans.
JING, however, is in the field of path planning for autonomous driving/vehicles (Para. [0003] of JING) and teaches wherein the comparison data is received from a reference planner, which is configured to compute a series of ego plans in the scenario with greater processing resources than those used by the target planner to compute its series of ego plans (e.g., Fig. 1A, 3, 8A-D, and 11 of JING, along with associated text, e.g., [0039] of JING: FIG. 1A depicts a two-level path planning system 100, in accordance with some example embodiments. Offline optimal path library generator 110 [reference planner] generates an optimal path library based on a map of a particular area such as a parking lot including data points taken in a grid pattern in the area; [0056] of JING: Some embodiments perform an exhaustive search offline for an optimal vehicle driving trajectory for the predefined and discretized driving space. The search includes all feasible sets of vehicle location and orientation combinations in the state space grid map. The search is performed offline from the autonomous vehicle, and every possible driving state situation in the discretized state space can be pre-evaluated in preparation for an autonomous driving path; [0127] of JING: The offline server described in the present document may be implement using a hardware platform (e.g., FIG. 11) or may be implemented using distributed computing resources such as cloud computing resources. To be able to perform an exhaustive analysis of possible optimal paths, the offline server may use computational resources that are greater than the computational resources that are available to online, or on-board, computers in an autonomous vehicle; see also [0066] of JING).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous vehicle planning method of NYGAARD to include the reference planner of JING for the purpose of faster overall path planning and/or performing an exhaustive analysis of possible optimal paths (Paras. [0034] & [0035] of JING).
Claim 19 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over NYGAARD et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0349057 A1) in view of TIN CHU et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,921,504).
Regarding claim 11, NYGAARD as discloses the method according to claim 10 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose further comprising generating a juncture point score based on the number of juncture points in the subset
TIN CHU, however, is in the field of simulation of autonomous driving vehicles (Abstract of TIN CHU) and teaches further comprising generating a juncture point score based on the number of juncture points in the subset (simulation computing system may determine metrics associated with one a plurality of performance attributes of the first autonomous controller 102, such as metrics associated with a number of determined points of a corridor corresponding to the vehicle path, velocities, accelerations, a number of determined actions, and the like, Col. 11, Line 67 – Col. 12, Line 9, of TIN CHU).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous vehicle planning method of NYGAARD to include the autonomous vehicle scoring method of TIN CHU for the purpose of evaluate a performance of the updated system as compared to a previous version (Col. 1, Line 14-15, of TIN CHU).
Regarding claim 12, NYGAARD modified by TIN CHU discloses the method according to claim 11 (as shown above), wherein the juncture point score takes into account, for each juncture point, the extent to which the difference between the trajectory parameters exceeds the threshold value (determines a difference 140 between a first value of a metric associated with a performance attribute 142 (e.g., maximum velocity difference) corresponding to the first autonomous controller 102 and a second value of the metric corresponding to the second autonomous controller. In various examples, the difference 140 may include a maximum difference associated with the metric in a respective scenario 144. In such examples, the difference 140 may represent a maximum deviation in performance between the two versions of the autonomous controller (e.g., candidate versus control, first autonomous controller 102 versus second autonomous controller, Col. 12, Line 60 – Col. 13, Line 5, of TIN CHU).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over NYGAARD et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0349057 A1) in view of YAMAMOTO et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0289228 A1).
Regarding claim 13, NYGAARD discloses the method according to claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose comprising indicating a juncture point to a user by rendering a visual indicator on a graphical user interface.
YAMAMOTO, however, is in the field of autonomous driving/steering control of a vehicle (Para. [0004] of YAMAMOTO) and teaches comprising indicating a juncture point to a user by rendering a visual indicator on a graphical user interface (FIG. 3 illustrates an information presentation example when the own vehicle is approaching the end of the traffic congestion under the following conditions … the own vehicle is approaching a junction having a branch during high-speed autonomous driving, Para. [0144] of YAMAMOTO; See also graphic route display G12 is a route guiding figure display indicating the scheduled traveling route of the own vehicle in units of lanes on the graphic lane display G11, Para. [0125] of YAMAMOTO; [Examiner notes FIG. 3 shows scheduled traveling route G12 splitting into at least two branches]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the autonomous vehicle planning method of NYGAARD to include the visual indicator rendering of YAMAMOTO for the purpose of user friendliness/customization (i.e., adapting whether or not to change lanes to artificial selection corresponding to the preference or circumstances of the occupant including the driver rather than automatic selection on the in-vehicle system side, Para. [0109] of YAMAMOTO).
Regarding claim 14, NYGAARD as modified by YAMAMOTO discloses the method according to claim 13 (as shown above), further comprising: rendering on the graphical user interface, a dynamic visualisation of the actual ego robot moving along a first path and the comparison ego robot moving along a second path, wherein the ego robot and the comparison ego robot are rendered as a single visual object in motion along the first and second paths prior to a juncture point (graphic route display G12 is a route guiding figure display indicating the scheduled traveling route of the own vehicle in units of lanes on the graphic lane display G11, Para. [0125] of YAMAMOTO; [Examiner notes FIG. 3 shows scheduled traveling route G12 [i.e., the ego robot and the comparison ego robot rendered as a single visual object in motion along the first and second paths prior to a junction path prior to splitting into at least two branches/paths]; See also FIG. 3 illustrates an information presentation example when the own vehicle is approaching the end of the traffic congestion under the following conditions … the own vehicle is approaching a junction having a branch during high-speed autonomous driving, Para. [0144] of YAMAMOTO); detecting the juncture point (detecting that the lane in which the own vehicle is traveling is congested, Para. [0039] of YAMAMOTO); and rendering the actual ego robot and the comparison ego robot as separate visual objects from the juncture point (graphic route display G12 is a route guiding figure display indicating the scheduled traveling route of the own vehicle in units of lanes on the graphic lane display G11, Para. [0125] of YAMAMOTO; [Examiner notes FIG. 3 shows scheduled traveling route G12 [i.e., the ego robot and the comparison ego robot rendered as a single visual object in motion along the first and second paths prior to a junction path prior to splitting into at least two branches/paths]; See also FIG. 3 illustrates an information presentation example when the own vehicle is approaching the end of the traffic congestion under the following conditions … the own vehicle is approaching a junction having a branch during high-speed autonomous driving, Para. [0144] of YAMAMOTO).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (571)272-3676. 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.
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
