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 .
Contents of this Office Action:
35 U.S.C 101 rejections
35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations
Explanation within the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation section of why there appropriate structure is defined in the Specification such that there is no 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection associated
35 U.S.C. 103 rejections
Prior Art cited on but not used
Note: there is a separate file included and cited on the 892 form that shows the date of Golle.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-10 are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The limitations of the independent claims of reading in data; generating diverse data records from the data; outputting the diverse data records; reading in processed data records; comparing the processed data records based on a similarity assessment; determining a final result of the processing of the data by comparing the processed data records; outputting the final result covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the application of the steps by a generic computing unit and hardware, nothing is being recited that could not be performed mentally.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the elements of a computing unit and generic vehicle sensors to perform the listed steps. The computing unit is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing unit to perform the listed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Turning to the dependent claims, the claims simply further define programs of the computer or specifics of data or the mental steps above. Thus, all dependent claims are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a computing unit in claims 8-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification discloses that a computing unit is simply a computer. Therefore, there are no 35 U.S.C 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin, Separating Agreement from Execution for Byzantine Fault Tolerant Services, 2003, hereinafter “Yin”, in view of Golle, “Uncheatable Distributed Computations”, 2001, hereinafter “Golle”.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, Yin discloses a method for processing data using hardware secured according to specified security criteria, the method comprising the following steps:
reading in the data (see below);
generating diverse data records from the data (see below);
outputting the diverse data records to various computers (see below)
reading in processed data records (see below);
comparing the processed data records based on a similarity assessment (see below);
determining a final result of the processing of the data by comparing the processed data records (see below); and
outputting the final result (see below).
The above limitations amount to a distributed computing system with a Byzantine fault tolerance. As shown on Page 3, section 3, and Fig. 1 a traditional Byzantine fault tolerant state machine architecture combines agreement and execution [11, 12, 40]. In such systems, clients send authenticated requests to the 3f + 1 servers in the system, where f is the maximum number of faults the system can tolerate. The servers then use a three-phase protocol to generate cryptographically verifiable proofs that assign unique sequence numbers to requests. Each server then executes requests in sequence-number order and sends replies to the clients. A set of f + 1 matching replies represents a reply certificate that a client can regard as proof that the request has been executed and that the reply is correct. This means there is a first computer that reads data, generates diverse records to send to 3f + 1 servers, those servers read and process the data by comparison with matching replies to determine and output a final result.
Please note that for claim 3 since these records are generated and sent to different computers, they are generated disjointly.
Please note that for claim 4 these records are distributed based on at least the criteria of being sent to 3f + 1 servers.
The only difference between the claimed invention and a traditional Byzantine fault tolerance is that the claim defines the first hardware to be secured by a specified security criteria and the other computers are not (this also corresponds to claim 2). However, Golle provides the teaching and rationale for having this exact type of uncheatable distributed computational network. At least Page 4, section 2 discloses a secured computer and several unsecured computers in a distributed computation network. The Abstract provides the rationale for doing so (Computationally expensive tasks that can be parallelized are most efficiently completed by distributing the computation among a large number of processors. The growth of the Internet has made it possible to invite the participation of just about any computer in such distributed computations. This introduces the potential for cheating by untrusted participants. In a commercial setting where participants get paid for their contribution, there is incentive for dishonest participants to claim credit for work they did not do. In this paper, we propose security schemes that defend against this threat with very little overhead. Our weaker scheme discourages cheating by ensuring that it does not pay off, while our stronger schemes let participants prove that they have done most of the work they were assigned with high probability). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Yin with the distributed computational network based on security criteria as taught by Golle to add additional security.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, these claims merely repeat the steps of claim 1, just with different computers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate these steps for the purposes of achieving more robust and replicated data. Please see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A) for more information.
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin, Separating Agreement from Execution for Byzantine Fault Tolerant Services, 2003, hereinafter “Yin”, in view of Golle, “Uncheatable Distributed Computations”, 2001, hereinafter “Golle” in view of Bachute “Autonomous Driving Architectures : Insights of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Algorithms”, 2021, hereinafter “Bachute”.
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 10, please see the rejection for claim 1 for the duplicate limitations. The difference between these claims and claims 1 and 8 is that these claims recite (or substantially recite):
generating sensor data using vehicle sensors;
wherein the final result contains a digital map; and
outputting the digital map to at least one vehicle.
These limitations are not taught by Yin or Golle.
However, Bachute Page 6, Col. 2 teaches a real-time amalgam A-star algorithm along with an occupancy grid map is used to detect an effective path for impediment. Then planning for the local path is carried out to produce a safe & contented trajectory in un-structured circumstances. An innovative risk-aware path planning practice for Autonomous Vehicles built on telematics behavioral information can be used. Fig. 8 shows the Dual step clustering utilizing Self-Organizing Map (SOM) and k-means clustering methods. A Self-Organizing Map is a type of single-layer neural network. They are utilized to map structures with high dimensional into dual dimensional space and comprised of numerous nodes on a dual-dimensional grid space or feature map. The SOM group’s inputs information by allotting every input to a discrete neuron.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Yin and Golle with the teachings of Bachute because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Specifically, there is no nexus between the distributed secure computing system limitations and the digital map generation. The limitations simply take a known technique (i.e. Byzantine fault tolerance) and use it in the context of map generation.
Prior Art Cited but not Relied on
Friedman “Simple and Efficient Oracle-Based Consensus Protocols for Asynchronous Byzantine Systems” disclosing the Consensus problem in asynchronous distributed systems where (up to f) processes (among n) can exhibit a Byzantine behavior, i.e., can deviate arbitrarily from their specification. One way to solve the Consensus problem in such a context consists of enriching the system with additional oracles that are powerful enough to cope with the uncertainty and unpredictability created by the combined effect of Byzantine behavior and asynchrony. This paper presents two kinds of Byzantine asynchronous Consensus protocols using two types of oracles, namely, a common coin that provides processes with random values and a failure detector oracle. Both allow the processes to decide in one communication step in favorable circumstances. The first is a randomized protocol for an oblivious scheduler model that assumes n > 5f. The second one is a failure detector-based protocol that assumes n > 6f. These protocols are designed to be particularly simple and efficient in terms of communication steps, the number of messages they generate in each step, and the size of messages. So, although they are not optimal in the number of Byzantine processes that can be tolerated, they are particularly efficient when we consider the number of communication steps they require to decide and the number and size of the messages they use. In that sense, they are practically appealing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 5712725109. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667