Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The application filed on Apr. 19, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claims (1, 11 & 12) as shown:
Claim 1. A method for initiating safety maneuvers, comprising:
creating an interactions chain data structure for an interactions chain, wherein the interactions chain includes a plurality of chain links arranged in an order, the plurality of chain links representing a plurality of components used for communications between a vehicle and at least one operation system, wherein the interactions chain data structure includes a plurality of nodes representing the plurality of chain links and a plurality of edges connecting between nodes of the plurality of nodes;
determining a plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links; and
initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses.
Claim 11. A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry to execute a process, the process comprising:
creating an interactions chain data structure for an interactions chain, wherein the interactions chain includes a plurality of chain links arranged in an order, the plurality of chain links representing a plurality of components used for communications between a vehicle and at least one system, wherein the interactions chain data structure includes a plurality of nodes representing the plurality of chain links and a plurality of edges connecting between nodes of the plurality of nodes;
determining a plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links; and
initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses.
Claim 12. A system for initiating safety maneuvers, comprising: a processing circuitry; and a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to:
create an interactions chain data structure for an interactions chain, wherein the interactions chain includes a plurality of chain links arranged in an order, the plurality of chain links representing a plurality of components used for communications between a vehicle and at least one operation system, wherein the interactions chain data structure includes a plurality of nodes representing the plurality of chain links and a plurality of edges connecting between nodes of the plurality of nodes;
determine a plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links; and
initiate a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method, a non-transitory computer, and a system which including at least one step. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims recite the limitations of functions steps of “creating an interactions chain data structure …’ “determining a plurality of statuses …”; and initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle ….”. Those function steps limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of by “a computer” including “a processing circuit” and “a memory” (in claim 11 & claim 12). That is, other than reciting by the “computer” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer” including “processing circuit” and “memory” languages, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple safety maneuver for the vehicle. The mere nominal recitation of by the computer with the processing circuit and the memory do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite the steps of 'creating an interactions chain data structure …' and 'determining a plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links …', describe a general method equivalent to a person using pen and paper to draw a simple interaction chain with linked nodes, which constitutes insignificant activity. Similarly, the step of “initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle …” amounts to mere post-solution activity, which is considered a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Finally, the 'computer,' including processing circuitry and a memory, merely describes the general application of mental judgments using a generic computer rather than a specific technical improvement. Further, sense according to the applicant’s specification, the command sent to the vehicle to initiate the maneuver doesn’t indicate which safety maneuver to be performed, this interpreted as merely sending a message to the vehicle or vehicle operator. (see paragraph 161 of applicant’s specification). “the system performing the method of FIG. 7 sends a command to the vehicle to initiate a safety maneuver which may not indicate which safety maneuver the vehicle should perform. In such an embodiment, the vehicle may make decisions regarding which safety maneuver to perform.” Also in paragraph 160, “initiating the safety maneuvers may include sending one or more commands, instructions, or other communications prompting the vehicle to perform one or more safety maneuvers”. Therefore, since the maneuver has not been performed, this is considered post solution activity, which is merely sending a message.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the creating and determining steps and the initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the “creating an interactions chain data structure … determining a plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links; and initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle …” steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity are supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-10 & 13-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 & 12.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-21 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recited 'creating an interaction chain data structure for an interaction chain …' is unclear and indefinite because the claim fails to define how “chain links”, edges are obtained in order to create “an interaction chain data structure”.
Claims 11 & 12 have same issue above.
Claims 2-10 & 13-21 depend upon rejected claims above.
Below are cited references that teach the claimed subject matter as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (20180169858) in view of Nordbruch (20230298466).
With regard to claim 1, Jain discloses a method for initiating safety maneuvers, comprising:
creating an interactions chain data structure for an interactions chain, wherein the interactions chain includes a plurality of chain links arranged in an order, the plurality of chain links representing a plurality of components used for communications between a vehicle and at least one operation system, wherein the interactions chain data structure includes a plurality of nodes representing the plurality of chain links and a plurality of edges connecting between nodes of the plurality of nodes (the system as shown in Fig.1 & Fig. 2 that are generated that shown an interactions data structure which includes a plurality of components such as a network 108, camera 220, microphone 222, drivetrain and wheels 152, actuator such as arm 154, robot 202, and etc. see [0032]-[0036]+, wherein the interactions data structure is equivalent to the claim’s of “interaction chain data structure for an interaction chain”, the components of such as a network 108, camera 220, and etc. are equivalent to the claim of “chain links” and “node” ) ;
determining a plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links (by using deep leaning technique to extract features from the sensor data to recongnize features and conditions, see [0036]+); and
performing one or more actions based on the recognized features and condition of the components, see [0036]-[0037]+.
Jain fails to teach initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses.
Nordbruch discloses a system and method for checking an effect chain that includes multiple components (405, 406, 407, 409, 413), such as a computer, traffic sign, video camera, and cloud service (see [0106]–[0108]). The system monitors the conditions of this effect chain to perform at least semi-automated control of a motor vehicle for safety purposes (see [0128] and [0071]–[0086]). This functionality meets the claim scope of “initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jain by including the step of initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on a determined plurality of statuses, as taught by Nordbruch, to improve the vehicle's safety performance.
With regard to claim 2, Jain teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links is determined based on a plurality of signals for the plurality of chain links (signals from the plurality components (network 108, camera 220, input subsystem 212, and etc. are determined for features and conditions, see [0037]-[0039]+).
With regard to claim 3, Nordbruch teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of statuses includes a first status for a first chain link of the plurality of chain links, wherein the first status indicates that the first chain link is broken, wherein the first status is determined based on a gap between a most recent signal of the plurality of signals for the first chain link and a current time that is above a threshold (the information about one or more failures of the component which effects the system provides one or more safety conditions, see [0039]+ & [0080]+.
With regard to claim 4, Nordbruch teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of signals is a binary value (the system set up digital twin, see [0019]+ which is obviously the system would use binary value data to come up the digital twin).
With regard to claim 5, Nordbruch teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the interactions chain data structure is further based on an order of the plurality of chain links, wherein the plurality of chain links includes a first chain link and a second chain link, wherein the second chain link is downstream from the first chain link within the order of the plurality of chain links, wherein a second status of the second chain link among the plurality of statuses is determined based on a first status of the first chain link among the plurality of statuses (the system provides order AVP procedure with type 1, 2 and 3. The AVP procedure is shared between the motor vehicle and the AVP system, see [0050]-[0054]+)
With regard to claims 6-7, Nordbruch teaches that the method of claim 5, wherein the first status of the first chain link is broken, wherein the second status of the second chain link is determined as broken when it is determined that the first status of the first chain link is broken (when information failure of the components and indicated of performed maintenance operations of the components, see [0039], thus the status of one of the component could be a first status, and the other component status could be a second status).
With regard to claim 8, Jain teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the interactions chain is determined based on a type of the vehicle and at least one predetermined component associated with the type of the vehicle (The sensor subsystem acquires data that characterizes or represents the robot 102, and data includes environmental sensor information representative of environmental condition, see [0042]+).
With regard to claim 9, Jain teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the interactions chain is determined based on at least one predetermined second type of component associated with at least one predetermined first type of component represented by a portion of the plurality of chain links (The structure 200 includes robot 200 with subsystem 203, 210, and etc. It also has the interaction chain such at network 108, camera 152 for environment, see [0044]-[0045]+).
With regard to claims 10, Nordbruch teaches that the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at least one available safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses; determining a safety maneuver based on the identified at least one available safety maneuver, wherein the initiated safety maneuver is the determined safety maneuver (the system provide multiple safety conditions, see [0080]-[0083]+ & [0132]+).
With regard to claim 11, Jain discloses non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry to execute a process, the process comprising:
creating an interactions chain data structure for an interactions chain, wherein the interactions chain includes a plurality of chain links arranged in an order, the plurality of chain links representing a plurality of components used for communications between a vehicle and at least one system, wherein the interactions chain data structure includes a plurality of nodes representing the plurality of chain links and a plurality of edges connecting between nodes of the plurality of nodes (the system as shown in Fig.1 & Fig. 2 that are generated that shown an interactions data structure which includes a plurality of components such as a network 108, camera 220, microphone 222, drivetrain and wheels 152, actuator such as arm 154, robot 202, and etc. see [0032]-[0036]+, wherein the interactions data structure is equivalent to the claim’s of “interaction chain data structure for an interaction chain”, the components of such as a network 108, camera 220, and etc. are equivalent to the claim of “chain links” and “node” );
determining a plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links (by using deep leaning technique to extract features from the sensor data to recongnize features and conditions, see [0036]+); and
performing one or more actions based on the recognized features and condition of the components, see [0036]-[0037]+.
Jain fails to teach initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses.
Nordbruch discloses a system and method for checking an effect chain that includes multiple components (405, 406, 407, 409, 413), such as a computer, traffic sign, video camera, and cloud service (see [0106]–[0108]). The system monitors the conditions of this effect chain to perform at least semi-automated control of a motor vehicle for safety purposes (see [0128] and [0071]–[0086]). This functionality meets the claim scope of “initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jain by including the step of initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on a determined plurality of statuses, as taught by Nordbruch, to improve the vehicle's safety performance.
With regard to claim 12, Jain discloses a system for initiating safety maneuvers, comprising: a processing circuitry; and a memory, the memory containing instructions that (a system 100 comprises a computer system 106, a storage device 110, see [0036]-[0045]+) when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to:
determining a plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links (by using deep leaning technique to extract features from the sensor data to recongnize features and conditions, see [0036]+); and
performing one or more actions based on the recognized features and condition of the components, see [0036]-[0037]+.
Jain fails to teach initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses.
Nordbruch discloses a system and method for checking an effect chain that includes multiple components (405, 406, 407, 409, 413), such as a computer, traffic sign, video camera, and cloud service (see [0106]–[0108]). The system monitors the conditions of this effect chain to perform at least semi-automated control of a motor vehicle for safety purposes (see [0128] and [0071]–[0086]). This functionality meets the claim scope of “initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jain by including the step of initiating a safety maneuver for the vehicle based on a determined plurality of statuses, as taught by Nordbruch, to improve the vehicle's safety performance.
With regard to claim 13, Jain teaches that the system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of statuses of the plurality of chain links is determined based on a plurality of signals for the plurality of chain links (signals from the plurality components (network 108, camera 220, input subsystem 212, and etc. are determined for features and conditions, see [0037]-[0039]+).
With regard to claim 14, Nordbruch teaches that the system of claim 13, wherein the plurality of statuses includes a first status for a first chain link of the plurality of chain links, wherein the first status indicates that the first chain link is broken, wherein the first status is determined based on a gap between a most recent signal of the plurality of signals for the first chain link and a current time that is above a threshold (the information about one or more failures of the component which effects the system provides one or more safety conditions, see [0039]+ & [0080]+.
With regard to claim 15, Nordbruch teaches that the system of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of signals is a binary value.
With regard to claim 16, Nordbruch teaches that the system of claim 12, wherein the interactions chain data structure is further based on an order of the plurality of chain links, wherein the plurality of chain links includes a first chain link and a second chain link, wherein the second chain link is downstream from the first chain link within the order of the plurality of chain links, wherein a second status of the second chain link among the plurality of statuses is determined based on a first status of the first chain link among the plurality of statuses (the system provides order AVP procedure with type 1, 2 and 3. The AVP procedure is shared between the motor vehicle and the AVP system, see [0050]-[0054]+)
With regard to claims 17-18, Nordbruch teaches that the system of claim 16, wherein the first status of the first chain link is broken, wherein the second status of the second chain link is determined as broken when it is determined that the first status of the first chain link is broken (when information failure of the components and indicated of performed maintenance operations of the components, see [0039], thus the status of one of the component could be a first status, and the other component status could be a second status).
With regard to claim 19, Jain teaches that the system of claim 12, wherein the interactions chain is determined based on a type of the vehicle and at least one predetermined component associated with the type of the vehicle (The sensor subsystem acquires data that characterizes or represents the robot 102, and data includes environmental sensor information representative of environmental condition, see [0042]+).
With regard to claim 20, Jain teaches that the system of claim 1, wherein the interactions chain is determined based on at least one predetermined second type of component associated with at least one predetermined first type of component represented by a portion of the plurality of chain links (The structure 200 includes robot 200 with subsystem 203, 210, and etc. It also has the interaction chain such at network 108, camera 152 for environment, see [0044]-[0045]+).
With regard to claim 21, Jain teaches that the system of claim 12, wherein the system is further configured to: identify at least one available safety maneuver for the vehicle based on the determined plurality of statuses; and determine a safety maneuver based on the identified at least one available safety maneuver, wherein the initiated safety maneuver is the determined safety maneuver (the system provide multiple safety conditions, see [0080]-[0083]+ & [0132]+).
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang (20230324187) discloses a system for create a navigation map 112 transformed into a big routing graph which consists of points and weighted lines in which a server 1606 may use to determine a route for a trip. Wherein the route trip taken by drivers of vehicles 108, communicated to the server which stores information specifying the route into the data based 107 to build up the historical data, which contains road segments, crossing edges, and nodes, see [0044]-[0048] which examiner interprets the big route graph as same as “an interactions chain data structure”, and the points and weighted lines of the routing graph are equivalent to “node” and “chain links” and “edges”; the server allocates all the road segments to the children nodes, generates different speed classes for road segments based on information detected by vehicles 108 taken the road segments, see [0048]- [0070]+); and navigating the vehicle based on the route for a trip is determined by the server and transmitted to the respective vehicle 108, see [0136]+.
Han (CN118250767A) discloses a system which sets up an air to ground heterogeneous wireless network with N drone and D ground base stations. Let S represent the source drone node in the air to ground , range R is distance between two nodes, see [0012]-[0015]+; Determine the link qualified, see [0107]+).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662