DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Although claims 1-20 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. No. 4, 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
The identified limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 16 recite:
A vehicle, comprising:
(a) a sensor;
(b) one or more processors; and
(c ) a memory encoded with instructions, which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
(d) generate a virtual model of an area surrounding a traffic signal;
(e ) determine whether sensor data of a path from the vehicle to the traffic signal is interrupted by one or more objects based on the virtual model determine a likelihood that the traffic signal is occluded based on a determined interruption; and
(f) based on the likelihood, attribute an occlusion indication to the sensor data to determine a state of the traffic signal.
The claim limitations fall within the Mental concepts – preforming by a human (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) groupings of abstract ideas. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computing components (i.e., a sensor, processor, memory, vehicle) does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain Mental concepts – preforming by a human concept grouping. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “generating” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
Part I: Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (PEG 2019, Pg. 54).
As a whole, the additional elements of claims 1, 9, 16 recite:
A vehicle, comprising:
(a) a sensor;
(b) one or more processors; and
(c ) a memory encoded with instructions, which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
(d) generate a virtual model of an area surrounding a traffic signal;
(e ) determine whether sensor data of a path from the vehicle to the traffic signal is interrupted by one or more objects based on the virtual model determine a likelihood that the traffic signal is occluded based on a determined interruption; and
(f) based on the likelihood, attribute an occlusion indication to the sensor data to determine a state of the traffic signal.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally mere data gathering, and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. a sensor, processor, memory, vehicle in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts 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 any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of the claimed invention, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements. The additional element of “a sensor, processor, memory, vehicle” in limitations (a) - (f) are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional elements (a) and (f) were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 1-20, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-15, 17-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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 for determining traffic signal that is occluded. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1, 9 and 16.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12056937. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would not possible to put the claimed invention into practice without infringing on the issued patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Creusot (2020/0183386).
Regarding claim 1: Creusot discloses a method for determining occluded traffic signals (Creusot, Abstract, 34-35), comprising:
generating a virtual model of an area surrounding a traffic signal (when the sensor system 1 101 generates a sensor signal indicative of the traffic light, wherein the determination by the object perception system 122 is based upon a date, a time of day, the location of the sensor system 1 101, and the orientation of the sensor system 1 101 i.e. generating a virtual model i.e. traffic light and surrounding data) (0034);
determining whether sensor data of a path from a vehicle to the traffic signal is interrupted by one or more objects based on the virtual model (The route generated by the routing system 120 can be further based upon information, such as objects that occlude the sun from the location of the sensor system 1 101 (e.g., a building), a current weather condition, or weather forecast information, to determine whether the sun causes a threshold level of perception degradation to the sensor system 1 101 when the sensor system 1 101 generates a sensor signal indicative of a traffic light. That is, the routing system 120 may generate routes based upon shadows from nearby objects or whether conditions that block the sun from otherwise causing the threshold level of perception degradation. Additionally, the routing system 120 can identify a maneuver to reposition the sensor system 1 101 in a location and/or orientation along the identified route that mitigates perception degradation to the sensor system 1 101.) (34-35);
determining that the traffic signal is occluded based on a determined interruption (The route generated by the routing system 120 can be further based upon information, such as objects that occlude the sun from the location of the sensor system 1 101 (e.g., a building), a current weather condition, or weather forecast information, to determine whether the sun causes a threshold level of perception degradation to the sensor system 1 101 when the sensor system 1 101 generates a sensor signal indicative of a traffic light.) (35); and
based on the determination that the traffic signal is occluded, attributing an occlusion indication to the sensor data to determine a state of the traffic signal (the routing system 120 can cause the autonomous vehicle 100 to navigate along an alternative route, change lanes, stop at different locations (e.g., to enable a traffic light to be viewed without interference from the sun), or the like. The control system 124 may control the mechanical systems to execute a maneuver that preempts perception degradation to the sensor system 1 101 determined to exceed the threshold level of perception degradation as well as maneuvers that are responsive to detection of the threshold level of perception degradation being exceeded) (35-36).
Regarding claim 2: Creusot discloses wherein the occlusion indication affects how the sensor data is evaluated when determining the state of the traffic signal (34-35).
Regarding claim 3: Creusot discloses determining whether the traffic signal is fully occluded; and based on determining that the traffic signal is fully occluded, ignoring sensor information related to the state of the traffic signal (40-43).
Regarding claim 4: Creusot discloses determining a likelihood that the traffic signal is occluded, wherein the occlusion indication is adjusted based on the likelihood (34-35).
Regarding claim 5: Creusot discloses wherein the area comprises a region of a road between the traffic signal and the vehicle (34-36).
Regarding claim 6: Creusot discloses wherein determining that the sensor data of the path is interrupted by the one or more objects comprises determining whether the one or more objects interrupt a straight line connecting a sensor to the traffic signal (34-36).
Regarding claim 8: Creusot discloses wherein determining that the sensor data of the path is interrupted by the one or more objects comprises determining whether a sensor can detect the traffic signal based on received location information (34-36).
Regarding claim 9-13 and 15: these claims contain the same features and limitations as claims 1- and 8 above and are therefore rejected under the same basis and rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D Lang whose telephone number is (571)270-3213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-11am and 2pm-6pm.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/MICHAEL D LANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667