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 .
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the term “the road” in the limitation disclosing “wherein the road is associated with a preset class”. However, the claims beforehand recite “wherein the road change information is related to whether a driving road which the vehicle travels on is changed to or from a road”. Therefore, “the road” herein is considered indefinite because it is unclear if “the road” refers to the road or the driving road previously recited in the claims, or to some other separate road. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are indefinite. For examination purposes, the road is broadly interpreted in view of the teachings of the prior art cited herein.
Claims 2-10, and 12-20 depend from claims 1 and 11, include all of their limitations, but do not cure their deficiencies, rendering them rejected under the same rationale.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. machine), claim 11 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program or instructions, when executed, cause performance of the method of claim 11. (i.e. machine). Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 14 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus for controlling an autonomous driving of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a controller; and memory storing instructions, when executed by the controller, configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive global positioning system (GPS) information, High Definition (HD) map information, road information, and sensor information, wherein the GPS information, the HD map information, and the road information are related to one or more roads ahead of the vehicle;
generate, based on the GPS information, the HD map information, road information, and the sensor information, road change information, wherein the road change information is related to whether a driving road which the vehicle travels on is changed to or from a road, and wherein the road is associated with a preset class; and
output, based on the road change information, a signal for controlling the autonomous driving of the vehicle.
Claims 11 and 20 recite similar claim limitations as claim 1 except for a method and the non-transitory computer readable medium.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “generating road change information” steps encompass a user to make an observation, evaluation or judgement about a road to detect upcoming road change within the region. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of an apparatus for controlling an autonomous driving of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a controller; and memory storing instructions, when executed by the controller, the non-transitory computer readable medium, receiving global positioning system (GPS) information, High Definition (HD) map information, road information, and sensor information, wherein the GPS information, the HD map information, and the road information are related to one or more roads ahead of the vehicle, output, based on the road change information, a signal for controlling the autonomous driving of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the apparatus, controller, memory, and non-transitory computer readable program are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the apparatus, controller, memory, and non-transitory computer readable program are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations comprising receiving global positioning system (GPS) information, High Definition (HD) map information, road information, and sensor information, wherein the GPS information, the HD map information, and the road information are related to one or more roads ahead of the vehicle and outputting, based on the road change information, a signal for controlling the autonomous driving of the vehicle are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and outputting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the generating step), and amounts to mere data gathering and data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus for controlling an autonomous driving of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a controller; and memory storing instructions, when executed by the controller, the non-transitory computer readable medium amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving and outputting, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the outputting are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. 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. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19 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. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 20.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodenheimer (US 20200393848A1) in view of Johnson (US-20210223049-A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Bodenheimer discloses an apparatus for controlling an autonomous driving of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a controller; and memory storing instructions, when executed by the controller ([0027]), configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive global positioning system (GPS) information ([0007]: “determining the position of the vehicle by a satellite navigation system (GNSS). This can, for example, be GPS, GLONASS, Galileo or BeiDou”), map information ([0009]: “matching the determined position with an electronically stored road map and a corresponding allocation of the determined position of the vehicle to a road on the road map. An electronically stored road map is, for example, a digital data record which, in the case of a vector map, images lines connected to dots, which correspond to the road network with the road courses, which may also include height indications”; [0010]-[0011]), road information ([0012]-[0014]), and sensor information ([0023]: “in a surrounding area around the position of the vehicle that can be captured by vehicle sensor technology, the information regarding open spaces without a drivable infrastructure contained in the road map is validated by the vehicle sensor technology, such as, a camera, radar, and/or lidar. Such vehicle sensor technology is frequently available anyway in the case of vehicles which can be operated autonomously”),
wherein the GPS information, the map information, and the road information are related to one or more roads ahead of the vehicle (See paragraphs [0017]-[0014] above for collected data, Fig. 2, [0042]-[0043]: “A corresponding map section having a multi-lane road S and the vehicle position P projected thereon is represented with the guaranteed position range PL in FIG. 2. A particular advantage is created by extending the map by two pieces of context information which also comply with the required integrity level. It is understood that the context information should accordingly be correct and should, for example, be regularly validated. The time interval in which a re-examination should take place can depend, for example, on the development potential of the areas surrounding the road S as well as the standard preparation time for the location and the implementation time. The first context information relates to access roads and exits E of a road S, the position of which is securely saved in the map. In addition to access roads and exits, these also include, for example, rest areas, emergency exits or similar”; [0044]);
generate, based on the GPS information, the map information, road information, and the sensor information, road change information, and wherein the road is associated with a preset class ([0012]-[0014]; [0021]: “access roads and exits are marked on the road map, where the validation of the road class is performed precisely once between access roads and/or exits. The condition that applies to this is that it must be a road having a structural separation between the roadways. Since it should not be possible for the vehicle to change road between two exits which could be used to leave the road, it can be assumed that the road class, once it has been validated, remains in force.”; [0042]-[0043]); and
output, based on the road change information, a signal for controlling the autonomous driving of the vehicle ([0015]: “Depending on whether a road class has been reliably established, that is to say positively validated, with the method according to the disclosure, an activation of an autonomous driving mode or an activation of other vehicle functions may be enabled depending on the permissibility saved for this road class. If the guaranteed position range is completely outside a region permitted for the activation, an activation is prevented from taking place”; [0018]: “in the event of a positive validation, an activation of a vehicle function, for examples, of an autonomous driving mode, is enabled, provided that the vehicle function has previously been enabled for the validated road class. The term "autonomous or respectively automated driving mode" is understood to mean that the vehicle completely or at least partially assumes control of the vehicle, for example steering, indicating, acceleration and braking maneuvers longitudinally and transversely to the lane without human intervention”).
However, Bodenheimer does not explicitly state the map information received is of a High-Definition map and wherein the road change information is related to whether a driving road which the vehicle travels on is changed to or from a road
On the other hand, Johnson teaches HD maps ([0013]: “enable retrieval of HD segment IDs and lanes given a sequence of points along a route. These points can be provided in any standard coordinate reference system (such as WGS 84, identified here as a non-limiting example) or via Traffic Management Channel (TMC) Codes. The algorithm will produce both road segment detail as well as lane level detail for the route. This approach can enable an autonomous vehicle system or Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) to know in advance all the road and lane level information required along a given planned route”; [0032]) and wherein the road change information is related to whether a driving road which the vehicle travels on is changed to or from a road ([0038]: “responsive to one or more changes in conditions, the at least one route may change to a changed route, or there may be a plurality of changed routes, one or more of the various actions being repeated in response to selection of the changed route or one of the changed routes”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Bodenheimer reference and include features from the Johnson reference with a reasonable expectation of success. HD maps specifically have extremely high precision that can be at centimeter-level. Therefore, using HD maps that are highly precise and highly details is required for autonomous cars since they can provide data that is within a few centimeters.
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Bodenheimer discloses
However, Bodenheimer does not explicitly state the HD map information comprises the road information comprises a road identification (ID) of the road associated with the preset class, a road link property and a lane link geometry of the road associated with the preset class.
On the other hand, Johnson teaches the HD map information comprises the road information comprises a road identification (ID) of the road associated with the preset class ([0090]: “Since nodes do not exist on an HD map but are created from an HD map, the nodes need to be converted to an HD segment ID sequence. This conversion is exemplified at 1821 and 1822. If an HD segment matches a starting node and ending node, the starting/ending node pair may be replaced by a segment ID. Flow recirculates through the various recorded path nodes, until there is not a segment matching the starting and ending node”), a road link property and a lane link geometry of the road associated with the preset class ([0004]: “Information to define such things as lane size and location on a road; lane type, such as regular, shoulder, passing, and/or express lanes, as well as HOV lanes and/or bike lanes. There may be information about speeds within a lane; striping or solid lines; and/or line color. In one aspect, this data may be updated, for example, as a particular road has an HOV lane added, or as paint striping for lane changes, or as one or more lanes is closed temporarily for construction, among other things”: speed limits broadly interpreted as Road link property, and lane curvature, elevation, etc. is broadly interpreted as the lane link geometry).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Bodenheimer reference and include features from the Johnson reference with a reasonable expectation of success. This provides a more precise autonomous driving operation of the vehicle.
Claims 2-3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodenheimer and Johnson in further view of DESENS (US-20170305420-A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Bodenheimer does not explicitly state set, based on the road change information, a precision positioning state of the vehicle to be a ready state of the vehicle.
On the other hand, DESENS teaches set, based on the road change information, a precision positioning state of the vehicle to be a ready state of the vehicle ([0014]-[0015]; [0036]: “autonomous operation of the vehicle may only take place if digital map data about the course of the travel path are present for the predetermined route length of the driving route ahead having a position accuracy which is better than a predetermined limit value G 3 , whereby it is ensured that, when using digital map data to calculate a vehicle trajectory along the predetermined driving route ahead, sufficiently precise map material is present which, in particular, also comprises a digital image of the driving lanes of the driving route ahead”; Note: automated driving is only allowed when certain precision criteria is met which is broadly interpreted to read on precision positioning state as corresponding to “ready” state of the vehicle, i.e. position accuracy is good enough to allow automated driving).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Bodenheimer reference and include features from the DESENS reference with a reasonable expectation of success. This provides a more precise autonomous driving operation of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Bodenheimer discloses the vehicle being determined to be in a state before entering a road associated with the preset class ([0020]-[0021]; [0042]-[0043]). However, Bodenheimer does not explicitly state output the GPS information; and set, based on, the precision positioning state to be a not-ready state of the vehicle.
On the other hand, DESENS teaches output the GPS information; and set, based on, the precision positioning state to be a not-ready state of the vehicle ([0020]; [0014]; [0015]; [0036]; Note: automated driving is only allowed when certain precision criteria is met which is broadly interpreted to read on precision positioning state as corresponding to “ready/non-ready” state of the vehicle, i.e. position accuracy is good enough to allow automated driving).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Bodenheimer reference and include features from the DESENS reference with a reasonable expectation of success. This provides a more precise autonomous driving operation of the vehicle.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodenheimer, Johnson, DESENS, in further view of OGURA (US-20170177002-A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Bodenheimer discloses based on the vehicle being determined to be in a state after exiting a road associated with the preset class.
However, Bodenheimer does not explicitly state estimate a location of the vehicle by applying dead reckoning (DR) to a previous location; and set the precision positioning state to be a not-ready state of the vehicle.
On the other hand, OGURA teaches estimate a location of the vehicle by applying dead reckoning (DR) to a previous location ([0045]; [0121]: “The controller may determine whether or not there is any abnormality in the process of dead-reckoning. For example, in cases where an inertial navigation system is applied, it is determined whether or not there is any abnormality in sensor values associated with the inertial navigation such as an rpm sensor on an axle (running wheels).”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Bodenheimer reference and include features from the OGURA reference with a reasonable expectation of success. This provides a more precise autonomous driving operation of the vehicle.
Furthermore, DESENS teaches set the precision positioning state to be a not-ready state of the vehicle ([0020]; [0014]; [0015]; [0036]; Note: automated driving is only allowed when certain precision criteria is met which is broadly interpreted to read on precision positioning state as corresponding to “ready/non-ready” state of the vehicle, i.e. position accuracy is good enough to allow automated driving).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Bodenheimer reference and include features from the DESENS reference with a reasonable expectation of success. This provides a more precise autonomous driving operation of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Bodenheimer does not explicitly state estimate, based on using the DR, the location of the vehicle within a preset distance.
On the other hand, OGURA teaches estimate, based on using the DR, the location of the vehicle within a preset distance ([0045]; [0105]; [0121]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Bodenheimer reference and include features from the OGURA reference with a reasonable expectation of success. This provides a more precise autonomous driving operation of the vehicle.
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodenheimer and Johnson in further view of Wray (US-20220196418-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Bodenheimer does not explicitly state the road information comprises information related to a most likely road, wherein the most likely road is determined to be most likely to be travelled on by the vehicle among a plurality of roads at a road junction or bifurcation ahead.
On the other hand, Wray teaches the road information comprises information related to a most likely road, wherein the most likely road is determined to be most likely to be travelled on by the vehicle among a plurality of roads at a road junction or bifurcation ahead ([0217]: “Using the navigation map to obtain the activation action of the engine of the HEV can include identifying, for a current position of the HEV along an edge of the navigation map, a set of most likely roads of the HEV; and selecting the activation action based on the set of most likely roads. The set of most likely roads can be identified by looking ahead, using edge traversal probabilities of the navigation map, a predetermined distance”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Bodenheimer reference and include features from the Wray reference with a reasonable expectation of success. This provides a more precise autonomous driving operation of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666