The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Claim Objection
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “… determine, from responses, from a human subject, to questions about preferences about the manner of the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle, the weight the weight for the rule that governs the manner of the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle, the questions selected, using a greedy technique, from a question set…” as recited in claim 20 should be “the weight the weight” is clear to contain a redundancy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1, 17 and 20:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claims 1, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine and process respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims and the other claims recite a system and method for determining from a human subject to questions about preference, determining a reason to cause a change, producing a rule, and causing the change as recited in independent claims 1, 17, and 20. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the processor”. That is, other than reciting “by the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the processor” language, the claim encompasses a person answering questions and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements to determine from a human subject to questions about preference, determine a reason to cause a change, produce a rule, and cause the change. The determining, producing and causing is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the outputting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The causing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the determining and producing steps step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 generating and outputting steps were considered to be 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. The background recites that driving information technology including information acquisition, perception and control of vehicle effecting a vehicle trajectory is well known [0003]. 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). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-16, and 18-19:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-16 are directed to a system. The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Claims 18-19 are directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-16 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-16 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Claims 18-19 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 17 applies. Claims 18-19 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-16, and 18-19 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-16, and 18-19 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-16, and 18-19 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 2-16, and 18-19 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-16, and 18-19 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-16, and 18-19 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation “… determine, from responses, from a human subject, to questions about preferences about the manner of the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle, the weight for the rule that governs the manner of the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle, the questions selected, using a greedy technique, from a question set…” is unclear and indefinite. What uses a greedy technique? Is the weight for the rule and/or the questions selected that uses a greedy technique? For examination purpose, a greedy technique is used for the weight for the rule and/or the questions selected. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-16, and 18-19 are rejected based on their dependency on base claims 1 and 17.
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: “weight determination module”, “perception module”, “reception module”, and “implementation module” as recited in claim 1, to perform respective function to “determine”, “determine”, “cause”, and “cause”; “presentation module”, and “reception module” as recited in claim 3, to perform respective function to “cause”, and “cause”.
“weight determination module”, “perception module”, “reception module”, and “implementation module” as recited in claim 1, and “reception module” as recited in claim 3 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description “[0103] The vehicle 800 can include one or more modules, at least some of which are described herein. The modules can be implemented as computer-readable program code that, when executed by the one or more processors 810, implement one or more of the various processes described herein. One or more of the modules can be a component of the one or more processors 810. Additionally or alternatively, one or more of the modules can be executed on and/or distributed among other processing systems to which the one or more processors 810 can be operatively connected. The modules can include instructions (e.g., program logic) executable by the one or more processors 810. Additionally or alternatively, the one or more data store 815 may contain such instructions.”.
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. “weight determination module”, “perception module”, “reception module”, and “implementation module” as recited in claim 1, and “reception module” as recited in claim 3 corresponds to a component of one or more processors.
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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Omari etal, US 20200406906 (A1) in view of Rosman etal, US 20240391502 (A1).
As to claim 1, Omari teaches a system, comprising:
a processor (“User device 830 may include one or more processors (e.g., CPU and/or GPU, memory)”, ¶79); and
a memory (“User device 830 may include one or more processors (e.g., CPU and/or GPU, memory)”, ¶79) storing:
a weight determination module including instructions that, when executed by the
processor, cause the processor to determine from responses, from a human subject, to questions about preferences about a manner of a performance of a change of a movement of an automated vehicle, a weight for a rule that governs the manner, the questions selected from a question set (“rules created for autonomously operating vehicles may address more detailed questions such as the rate of acceleration or the rate or length of braking forces that can affect the experience of a passenger in a vehicle. A vehicle that accelerates too quickly may leave passengers of the vehicle feeling unsafe or uncomfortable. However, these types of detailed rules are most often decided based on the experiences of the persons responsible for designing the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle and the models underlying its decisional capabilities. Thus, the opinions of a small number of persons may dictate the elements of vehicle operation that determine the overall comfort level of passengers riding in the vehicle. Because ride comfort is a particularly subjective question—each driver and passenger may have their own subtle preferences for details such as how quickly a vehicle should perform certain operations”, ¶2);
a perception module including instructions that, when executed by the processor,
cause the processor to determine an existence of a reason to cause the change (“rules created for autonomously operating vehicles may address more detailed questions such as the rate of acceleration or the rate or length of braking forces that can affect the experience of a passenger in a vehicle.”, ¶2);
a rule production module including instructions that, when executed by the
processor, cause the processor to produce the rule with the weight applied (“a passenger may indicate that they prefer a more conservative or a more aggressive response to situations they encounter while riding in the vehicle. In particular embodiments, the vehicle action intensity preference may be more granular, presenting preferred response tactics to individual scenarios. For example, a passenger may say that prefer a more conservative, slower approach to a stop sign, and that they also prefer that the vehicle accelerate more aggressively after coming to a complete stop. The passenger data that comprises a vehicle action intensity preference may be used by the model generator system 220 to weight the evaluations from a passenger.”, ¶24), the rule comprising:
a first subrule for a preference (“model generator system 220 may receive one or more evaluations 214 of each vehicle action. In particular embodiments, passengers of a vehicle may be afforded the opportunity to provide feedback about the quality or comfort of their experience while riding in a vehicle…The feedback requested may include feedback regarding … level of comfort.”, ¶23), and
a second subrule for a safety (“model generator system 220 may receive one or more evaluations 214 of each vehicle action. In particular embodiments, passengers of a vehicle may be afforded the opportunity to provide feedback about the quality or comfort of their experience while riding in a vehicle…The feedback requested may include feedback regarding perceived safety...”, ¶23); and
an implementation module including instructions that, when executed by the
processor, cause the change (“rovide other feedback related to any particular vehicle action, trajectory, or maneuver. The evaluation may be associated with and stored in conjunction with the vehicle action to be used by the model generator system 220”, ¶23).
Omari does not explicitly teach the system wherein a rule that governs the manner and/or the questions selected, using a greedy technique, from a question set.
However, Rosman teaches a trajectory prediction that leverages game-theory to improve coverage of multi-modal predictions that include understanding human decision-making, facilitating analysis of bounded rational decision-making under a maximum entropy (MaxEnt), and reflecting the reality that whether road agents are greedy (Rosman: abs, ¶81). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the comfort modeling of Omari to include a rule that governs the manner and/or the questions selected, using a greedy technique, from a question set as taught by Omari to improve driver safety and comfort during autonomous vehicle operation (Omari: ¶2).
As to claim 2, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein the preference is with respect to at least one of:
a degree of comfort of the human subject during the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle (Omari: “provide an evaluation of the vehicle action. For example, the passenger may be asked to rate their comfort during the scenario and may be given a working scale (e.g., positive or negative, a five-point scale, etc.):”, ¶23), or
a degree of vehicle performance of the automated vehicle during the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle (Omari: “vehicle action intensity preference that relates to the passenger's typical preferred response to a vehicle action. For example, a passenger may indicate that they prefer a more conservative or a more aggressive response to situations they encounter while riding in the vehicle.”, ¶24).
As to claim 3, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein the memory further stores:
a presentation module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause the questions to be presented to the human subject (Omari: “a simulated vehicle may include a simulation of driving or passenger experiences provided to passenger, for example, through a computer-based or virtual-reality experience.”, ¶37); and
a reception module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive the responses (Omari: “vehicle management system may provide an evaluation system within the vehicle, or embodied as an application (e.g., native application or web page) for use by one or more client devices. The evaluation system may provide an interface to allow the user to provide feedback regarding their perceived comfort during the course of their time in the vehicle”, ¶37).
As to claim 4, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein:
the instructions to cause the questions to be presented to the human
subject (Omari: “a simulated vehicle may include a simulation of driving or passenger experiences provided to passenger, for example, through a computer-based or virtual-reality experience.”, ¶37),
the instructions to receive the responses (Omari: “vehicle management system may provide an evaluation system within the vehicle, or embodied as an application (e.g., native application or web page) for use by one or more client devices. The evaluation system may provide an interface to allow the user to provide feedback regarding their perceived comfort during the course of their time in the vehicle”, ¶37), and
the instructions to determine the weight for the rule are configured to be performed before the human subject causes the automated vehicle to be operated on a public road (Omari: “models may additionally be trained using data generated by simulated vehicles operating in virtual environments for model training purposes. The models may be used for other purposes as well. In particular embodiments, a transportation management system may use a rider preference model 240 when selecting a vehicle from a fleet of vehicles to respond to a service request. In particular embodiments, a predicted comfort model 230 may be used to provide guidance to a human driver of a vehicle, so as to optimize the experience of a passenger of the vehicle”, ¶35).
As to claim 5, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein:
the implementation module further includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause, before a determination of the weight for the rule, the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle in a specific manner (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text), and
wherein:
the instructions to cause the questions to be presented to the human
subject (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text),
the instructions to receive the responses (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text), and
the instructions to determine the weight for the rule are configured to be performed in response to the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle in the specific manner (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text).
As to claim 6, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein
the processor comprises a first processor and a second processor (Omari: ¶89, 79),
the first processor is disposed on the automated vehicle (Omari: “computer system 900 includes a processor 902, memory 904, storage 906, an input/output (I/O) interface 908, a communication interface 910, and a bus 912”, ¶89; claim 11),
the second processor is disposed on a computing device, the computing device being separate from the automated vehicle (Omari: “user device 830 may be a mobile computing device such as a smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer. User device 830 may include one or more processors (e.g., CPU and/or GPU)”, ¶79),
the memory comprises a first memory and a second memory (Omari: ¶79, 89),
the first memory is disposed on the automated vehicle (Omari: “User device 830 may include one or more processors (e.g., CPU and/or GPU), memory, and storage”, ¶79),
the second memory is disposed on the computing device (Omari: computer system 900 includes a processor 902, memory 904, storage 906”, ¶89),
As to claim 7, Omari and Rosman teaches the system the instructions to cause the questions to be presented to the human subject include instructions to cause the second processor to cause the questions to be presented to the human subject (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; “passengers of a vehicle may be afforded the opportunity to provide feedback about the quality or comfort of their experience while riding in a vehicle”, ¶23, 89),
the instructions to receive the responses include instructions to cause the second
processor to receive the responses (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; “passengers of a vehicle may be afforded the opportunity to provide feedback about the quality or comfort of their experience while riding in a vehicle”, ¶23, 89),
the instructions to determine the weight for the rule include instructions to cause the second processor to determine the weight for the rule (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; “weight the evaluations from a passenger”, ¶24, 89),
the instructions to determine the existence of the reason to cause the change include instructions to cause the first processor to determine the existence of the reason to cause the change (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; ¶79),
the instructions to produce the rule with the weight applied include instructions to cause the first processor to produce the rule with the weight applied (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; ¶79),
the instructions to cause the change of the movement of the automated vehicle include instructions to cause the first processor to cause the change of the movement of the automated vehicle (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; ¶79),
the second memory stores a computing device communications module including
instructions that, when executed by the second processor, cause the second processor to cause the weight for the rule to be transmitted to the automated vehicle (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; ¶79, 89), and
the first memory stores an automated vehicle communications module including
instructions that, when executed by the first processor, cause the first processor to receive the weight for the rule (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; ¶79).
As to claim 8, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein:
a question, of the questions, comprises a pairwise comparison question (Omari: “a passenger may indicate that they prefer a more conservative or a more aggressive response to situations they encounter while riding in the vehicle”, ¶24),
the pairwise comparison question comprises a pair of options (Omari: “preferred response tactics to individual scenarios”, ¶24),
the pair of options comprises a first option and a second option (Omari: conservative vs aggressive, ¶24),
the first option is about a first manner of the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle (Omari: “slower approach to a stop sign”, ¶24),
the second option is about a second manner of the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle (Omari: “that the vehicle accelerate more aggressively after coming to a complete stop”, ¶24), and
a response, of the responses, to the pair of options comprises one of the first option and the second option (Omari: “weight the evaluations from a passenger”, ¶24).
As to claim 9, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein the instructions to cause the pairwise comparison question to be presented to the human subject include instructions to cause occurrences (Omari: “preferred response tactics to individual scenarios”, ¶24) of:
a simulation of the first manner of the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle (Omari: Fig. 3 and related text: simulated driving, ¶36), and
a simulation of the second manner of the performance of the change of the movement of the automated vehicle (Omari: Fig. 3 and related text: simulated driving, ¶36).
As to claim 14, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein:
the instructions to cause the change of the movement of the automated vehicle include instructions to cause a first signal to be transmitted to a control stage of an autonomous motion technology system of the automated vehicle (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; ¶50-53),
the first signal includes information about the rule (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; ¶50-53), and
the control stage is configured to:
transmit a second signal to an actuator configured to cause the movement
of the automated vehicle (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; ¶50-53), and
receive a third signal from a sensor configured to determine a measurement of a variable associated with the movement of the automated vehicle so that the movement of the automated vehicle occurs in accordance with the rule (Omari: Fig. 2 and related text; ¶50-53).
As to claim 15, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein the variable comprises at least one of a speed of the automated vehicle, an acceleration of the automated vehicle, a jerk of the automated vehicle, a distance between the automated vehicle and an object, a longitudinal distance between a longitudinal axis of the automated vehicle and the object, or a lateral distance between the longitudinal axis of the automated vehicle and the object (Omari: jerk, speed, distance, ¶21).
As to claim 16, Omari and Rosman teaches the system wherein, in accordance with the rule, the measurement of the variable is a function of a measurement of another variable (Omari: “sensor data may come from any other suitable sensors”, ¶21).
As to claim 18, Omari and Rosman teaches the method wherein the automated vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (Omari: autonomous vehicle, ¶1).
As to claims 17 and 20, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the apparatus claim 1. As such, claims 17 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for claim 1 and are incorporated herein (see claim 1 above for reason to combine, rationale, and motivation).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Omari etal, US 20200406906 (A1) in view of Rosman etal, US 20240391502 (A1), further in view of Schleede etal, US 12139133 (B1).
As to claim 19, Omari modified by Rosman does not explicitly teach the method wherein the rule is expressed using weighted signal temporal logic.
However, Schleede, in the same field endeavor, teaches a training vehicle behavior using machine learning model with signal temporal logic on weight parameters (Schleede: abs, C7L13-24, C24L10-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the comfort modeling of Omari modified by Rosman to include the rule is expressed using weighted signal temporal logic as taught by Schleede to improve driver safety and comfort during autonomous vehicle operation (Omari: ¶2).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on 313-446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667