DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 01/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 01/15/2026. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed invention is rooted in computer technology and addresses motion planning for an autonomous vehicle. Applicant further asserts that claim 1 provides a technical solution by generating a spatiotemporal safety corridor usable to plan an adjusted route for the vehicle. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner finds that claim 1 recites identifying a reference path, identifying violated constraints and their priorities, generating bounding boxes, and generating a spatiotemporal safety corridor. The Examiner finds these limitations amount to collecting information, analyzing that information according to a set of rules or priorities, and generating a resulting informational construct. Under Step 2A, Prong One, such steps recite a mental process because they describe observation, evaluation, and judgment, rather than a specific technological operation.
Applicant further argues that the claimed steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind, particularly in real time. Additionally, Applicant asserts that a human mind is not equipped to process the claimed constraints, priorities, and bounding boxes in the manner recited. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds that claim 1 does not recite any requirement for real-time processing, sensor-data processing, or instantaneous vehicle decision-making. Rather, claim 1 broadly recites evaluating constraints and generating a corridor from that evaluation. The Examiner therefore finds that the claim, as written, covers conceptual performance of the recited steps, even if a computer may perform them faster or more efficiently in practice. Accordingly, the claim still recites a mental process under Step 2A, Prong One.
Moreover, Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical advancement in vehicle motion planning. Applicant additionally asserts that the claimed invention improves motion planning by optimizing an adjusted path for the vehicle. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds that merely applying the claimed analysis in the field of vehicle motion planning does not make the claim non-abstract. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the relevant inquiry is whether the claim integrates the exception into a practical application. Here, claim 1 does not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality, any particular machine implementation, or any technological mechanism by which the alleged improvement is achieved. Instead, the claim remains focused on analyzing path and constraint information and generating a corridor based on that analysis.
Applicant also argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the generated spatiotemporal safety corridor is usable to plan an adjusted route for the vehicle. Additionally, Applicant asserts that the corridor improves safety and allows acceptable deviations from the reference path. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds that claim 1 does not recite controlling the vehicle, actuating vehicle components, or otherwise applying the generated corridor in a concrete technological manner. Instead, the claim ends with generating information usable for further planning, which is an informational result rather than a practical application. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Further, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more because they allegedly provide smoother and more continuous vehicle operation. Applicant further asserts that the claimed invention improves motion planning by refining the path while avoiding violation of higher-priority constraints. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds that claim 1 does not recite smoothing the route, continuous driving control, or any particular vehicle operation based on the generated corridor. The asserted improvement is therefore not commensurate with the claim language. Under Step 2B, an inventive concept cannot be supplied by advantages described in argument but not required by the claim itself. As such, these assertions do not show that the claim includes significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the claimed invention and asserts that this supports a finding of significantly more. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds that novelty over the prior art is a separate inquiry from eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Even assuming the prior art does not disclose the claimed limitations, claim 1 still recites generic computer implementation of an abstract idea. The question under Step 2B is not whether the claim is new, but whether the additional elements amount to an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception. Here, the Examiner finds they do not.
Finally, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The memory merely stores constraints having different priorities, and the processor merely performs routine information-processing functions of identifying, evaluating, and generating data. The Examiner finds these are generic computer components performing ordinary functions. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, these elements merely apply the abstract idea on generic computer hardware and do not reflect any non-conventional arrangement or technological improvement. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that claim 1 remains directed to a mental process, does not integrate the exception into a practical application, and does not recite significantly more. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
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. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1, 10, and 19:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to statutory categories (i.e., system, method, and system). (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
The independent claims are directed to a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Independent claim 1 recites identifying a reference path through a spatiotemporal space defined by at least two spatial dimensions and time, identifying at each state along that path the priority of a constraint that is being violated, generating a bounding box around the reference path that avoids higher-priority constraints, and generating, based on those boxes, a spatiotemporal safety corridor. The Examiner finds these steps amount to gathering data, analyzing that data, and outputting the analyzed data (i.e., safety corridor), which can be performed conceptually in the human mind or through mathematical computation, and therefore constitute a mental process.
Independent claim 10 recites substantially the same concept expressed as a method. The claim performs the same sequence of operations (i.e., identifying a reference path, determining constraint violations and priorities at each state, generating bounding boxes around the path that avoid higher-priority constraints, and generating a safety corridor from those bounding boxes). These limitations represent the abstract manipulation of information: (i) the collection of data about a vehicle path and its constraints, (ii) analytical evaluation of that data according to a rule hierarchy, and (iii) production of a new data construct representing the result of that analysis.
Independent claim 19 recites a system that stores a first constraint with a higher priority and a second constraint with a lower priority, identifies a reference path, determines that the lower-priority constraint is violated, generates a bounding box that avoids the higher-priority constraint, and produces a spatiotemporal safety corridor. The claim merely organizes and evaluates information about constraints and paths and produces another item of information reflecting said evaluation. The stored constraints, the priority comparison, and the bounding-box generation are all conceptual data-processing steps.
As a result, the Examiner finds the independent claims are directed to a 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.
The independent claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each claim applies the abstract concept of gathering, analyzing, and outputting data within the context of vehicle motion planning using only generic computer components. The claims are limited to the processing and presentation of information without any meaningful application to improve a technology or effect a transformation.
Therefore, the Examiner finds Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 fail to include additional elements that apply or integrate the judicial exception into a practical use.
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, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Each independent claim relies on generic computer components performing routine functions and ends with an informational result. No claim recites any non-conventional hardware, specialized computer architecture, or particularized programming that changes how the computer operates or effects a transformation.
Regarding claim 1, the recited “memory configured to store a plurality of constraints having different priorities” and the “processor” that identifies a reference path, evaluates per-state violations and priorities, generates per-state bounding boxes, and outputs a spatiotemporal safety corridor are generic components executing routine data processing. The claimed operations reflect ordinary algorithmic steps (i.e., data intake, rule evaluation, geometric computation, and data output). The bounding box and safety corridor are informational constructs. The claim does not include any limitation applying that information to actuators, modifying a control loop, changing a machine state, or improving computer performance. Individually or together, these elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 10, the method recites the same sequence (i.e., identify the reference path, determine per-state constraint violations and priorities, generate per-state bounding boxes, and generate the safety corridor implemented through abstract computations). The claim does not tie the steps to a particular machine beyond a generic computer, does not specify any unconventional data structures or processing techniques, and does not require any real-time control, sensor interfacing, or actuation based on the corridor. The ordered combination is a conventional information-processing pipeline and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 19, the storage of a “first constraint” with higher priority and a “second constraint” with lower priority, and the examples that constraints may represent obstacles, safety regions, or road rules, merely limit the content of the data being analyzed. The processor’s actions (i.e., detecting a lower-priority violation, generating a bounding box that respects the higher-priority constraint, and producing a spatiotemporal safety corridor) remain routine information processing on a general-purpose computer. No limitation introduces a non-conventional technical arrangement, specialized hardware interaction, or concrete application of the output to vehicle control. Taken individually or in combination, these elements do not supply an inventive concept.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claims 1, 10, and 19. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (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’”).
The dependent claims continue to encompass the mental process established in the independent claim(s). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for the independent claim(s) applies. Therefore, the dependent claims 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.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations, these limitations, when viewed both individually and in combination for the claim, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, the dependent claims 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 the dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually (i.e., within a claim) and as a whole (i.e., claim set), 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 claim analysis). As a result, the dependent claims fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate said claims into a practical application.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0354729A1 (hereinafter, Ng), in view of Pan et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2024/0238977A1 (hereinafter, Pan), in further view of Zhang et al. U.S. 20230211802A1 (hereinafter, Zhang).
Regarding Claim 1, Ng describes a motion planning system for planning motion for a vehicle (planning motion for the vehicle, Ng, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0028), the motion planning system comprising:
-a memory configured to store a plurality of constraints having different priorities (memory of the vehicle can store known considerations having varying priorities (e.g., collision avoidance, comfort, fuel consumption, speed limit, etc.) which are calculated via the negative weight value, Ng, Paragraph 0028 and Figure 10); at least one processor (processor, Ng, Figure 10) configured to:
-identify a reference path through a spatiotemporal space that includes at least two spatial dimensions and a time dimension, wherein the at least two spatial dimensions define a spatial frame, and wherein the reference path is defined as a sequence of states of the vehicle along the reference path (vehicle capable of predicting (i.e., identifying) a path of the vehicle (i.e., reference path) through a spatial space (e.g., X and Y plane) and time dimension (i.e., seconds), the predicted path being a sequence of frames or points (i.e., states) of the vehicle along the predicted path, Ng, Paragraphs 0028 and 0085 and Figure 6);
-identify, at each of the sequence of states along the reference path, a priority of a constraint of the plurality of constraints that is being violated by the reference path (vehicle capable at each sequence of states along a path identifying a priority constraint from the plurality of constraints (i.e., known consideration with a heaviest weighting against all the other detected considerations), Ng, Paragraphs 0028 and 0085 and Figure 6);
-…; and
-generate, based on the bounding box at each of the sequence of states along the reference path, a spatiotemporal safety corridor for the vehicle through the spatiotemporal space (vehicle capable of generating a path which avoids known considerations which would lead to a collision, thus selecting a path that is safe, Ng, Paragraphs 0028, 0058 and 0085-0089 and Figures 1 and 6).
Ng does not specifically disclose the system to include generat[ing], at each of the sequence of states along the reference path, a bounding box around the reference path having an area in the spatial frame that does not violate remaining constraints of the plurality of constraints having priorities higher than the priority of the constraint that is being violated by the reference path.
Pan discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Pan describes a path planning and collision avoidance system wherein the system generates bounding boxes around the reference path wherein the bounding boxes formed do not violate remaining constraints which have higher priorities (e.g., objects) (Pan, Paragraph 0052 and Figure 3a).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ng to include generating, at each of the sequence of states along the reference path, a bounding box around the reference path having an area in the spatial frame that does not violate remaining constraints of the plurality of constraints having priorities higher than the priority of the constraint that is being violated by the reference path, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Pan.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because determining a safe path, via methods, such as bounded box paths, allows for a device to traverse collision free, which is desired in the field (Pan, Paragraph 0003).
However, Ng and Pan do not specifically disclose the system to include that the spatiotemporal safety corridor defines an area around the reference path which is usable to plan an adjusted route for the vehicle relative to the reference path.
Zhang discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Zhang describes a path planning system wherein the system defines an area around the reference path (i.e., safe corridor) which is usable to plan an adjusted route for the vehicle relative to the reference path or trajectory (Zhang, Paragraph 0010 and Figure 2a).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ng to include that the spatiotemporal safety corridor defines an area around the reference path which is usable to plan an adjusted route for the vehicle relative to the reference path, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Zhang.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because determining a safe path, via methods, such as a safe corridor, allows for a device to traverse collision free and able to quickly determine a route with less processing (Zhang, Paragraphs 0008-0009).
Regarding Claim 2, Ng, as modified, describes the motion planning system of claim 1, wherein: at least one of the plurality of constraints represents obstacles in the spatial frame and safety regions around the obstacles (at least one of the plurality of constraints are obstacles detected around the vehicle, Ng, Paragraphs 0028 and 0085 and Figures 3D and 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Ng, as modified, describes the motion planning system of claim 2, wherein: the safety regions vary based on a predicted velocity of the vehicle at the sequence of states (safety regions based on predicted velocity of the vehicle, Ng, Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 4, Ng, as modified, describes the motion planning system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, to identify the priority of the constraint that is being violated by the reference path, is further configured to: identify, at each of the sequence of states along the reference path, a highest priority constraint of the plurality of constraints that is being violated by the reference path (vehicle capable at each sequence of states along a path identifying a priority constraint from the plurality of constraints (i.e., known consideration with a heaviest weighting against all the other detected considerations), Ng, Paragraphs 0028 and 0085 and Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Ng, as modified, describes the motion planning system of claim 1.
Ng does not specifically disclose the system to include generat[ing] the bounding box to have the area that is not greater than (i) the area in the spatial frame that does not violate the remaining constraints of the plurality of constraints having the priorities higher than the constraint that is being violated by the reference path, or (ii) a pre-determined maximum area.
Pan discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Pan describes a path planning and collision avoidance system wherein the system generates bounding boxes around the reference path wherein the bounding boxes are a pre-determined maximum area (Pan, Paragraph 0052 and Figure 3a).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Ng to include generating the bounding box to have the area that is not greater than (i) the area in the spatial frame that does not violate the remaining constraints of the plurality of constraints having the priorities higher than the constraint that is being violated by the reference path, or (ii) a pre-determined maximum area, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Pan.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because determining a safe path, via methods, such as bounded box paths, allows for a device to traverse collision free, which is desired in the field (Pan, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 6, Ng, as modified, describes the motion planning system of claim 5,
wherein: the pre-determined maximum area is based on a multiple of a width of a lane of a road (bounding box based in part on the width of the lane, Ng, Figure 3D and Paragraph 0070).
Regarding Claim 7, Ng, as modified, describes the motion planning system of claim 5, wherein: the pre-determined maximum area is based on a multiple of a length of the vehicle (bounding box based in part on the length of the vehicle, Ng, Figure 3D and Paragraph 0070).
Regarding Claim 8, Ng, as modified, describes the motion planning system of claim 1, wherein: at least one of the plurality of constraints represents rules of a road (rules of the road, Ng, Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 9, Ng, as modified, describes the motion planning system of claim 1, wherein: at least one of the plurality of constraints is based on a capability of the vehicle to vary at least one of a velocity and a direction of the vehicle within the spatial frame (planning system based in part on velocity and direction of the vehicle, Ng, Paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 5-7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (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 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights