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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Nonstatutory 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The claim of this instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of co-pending Application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Double Patenting Rejections will not be revisited and be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is to be found.
Instant Application
20200375666
1. An evaluation method of a driving system of a moving object, which includes a perception system, a determination system, and a control system as subsystems, the evaluation method comprising: specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure, an interaction between each of the subsystems and a real world; specifying an error occurring in each of the subsystems; and evaluating the error propagating in accordance with the closed loop.
2. An evaluation method of a driving system of a moving object, which includes a perception system, a determination system, and a control system as subsystems, the evaluation method comprising: specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure, an interaction between each of the subsystems and a real world; introducing reliability into each of the subsystems as a common measure between each of subsystems to evaluate a composite factor between the subsystems; and evaluating the closed loop based on the reliability.
3. The evaluation method according to claim 2, further comprising: specifying an error occurring in each of the subsystems, wherein evaluating the closed loop further includes evaluating whether? the error, which propagates in accordance with the closed loop, falls within an allowable error with a probability that is greater than or equal to predetermined reliability.
4. The evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the closed loop includes a loop that circulates through the moving object in the real world, the perception system, and the control system, and the loop is completed within the moving object.
5. The evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein the closed loop includes a loop that circulates through the moving object in the real world, an external environment in the real world, the perception system, the determination system, and the control system, and the loop evaluates an interaction between the moving object and the external environment.
6. A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium storing a computer program that causes a computer to execute: specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure, an interaction between each of subsystems and a real world for a driving system of a moving object, which includes a perception system, a determination system, and a control system as the subsystems; specifying an error occurring in each of the subsystems; and evaluating the error propagating in accordance with the closed loop.
7. A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium storing a computer program that causes a computer to execute: specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure, an interaction between each of subsystems and a real world for a driving system of a moving object, which includes a perception system, a determination system, and a control system as the subsystems; introducing reliability into each of the subsystems as a common measure between the subsystems to evaluate a composite factor between the subsystems; and evaluating the closed loop based on the reliability.
1. A design method of a driving system, which includes a plurality of subsystems and implements a dynamic driving task of a moving object in cooperation with each of the subsystems, the design method, which is performed by at least one processor, comprising: calculating an error occurring in each of temporarily designed subsystems; tentatively allocating, to each of the subsystems, an allowable deviation that is allowed for an entire driving system; specifying an allowable error, which is allowed for each of the subsystems, from a deviation allocated to each of the subsystems based on an evaluation on an error propagating through the driving system; and adjusting allocation of the allowable error to each of the subsystems based on a result of comparing the calculated error with an allowable error of the subsystem corresponding to the calculated error.
2. A design method of a driving system, which includes a plurality of subsystems and implements a dynamic driving task of a moving object in cooperation with each of the subsystems, the design method, which is performed by at least one processor, comprising: introducing reliability into each of the subsystems as a common measure between each of the subsystems to evaluate a composite factor between the subsystems; allocating the reliability to each of subsystems based on a specification of the driving system; and determining the specification of each of the subsystems such that an error, which is generated in each of the subsystems and propagates through the driving system, falls within an allowable error with a probability of a predetermined reliability or higher.
3. The design method according to claim 1, wherein the error propagating through the driving system is evaluated according to a closed loop in which an interaction between each of the subsystems and a real world is modeled as a loop structure.
4. The design method according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of subsystems includes a perception system, a determination system, and a control system.
5. The design method according to claim 4, wherein the closed loop includes a loop that circulates through the moving object in the real world, the perception system, and the control system, and the loop is completed within the moving object.
6. The design method according to claim 4, wherein the closed loop includes a loop that circulates through the moving object in the real world, an external environment in the real world, the perception system, the determination system, and the control system, and the loop evaluates an interaction between the moving object and the external environment.
7. A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium storing a program for a driving system, which includes a plurality of subsystems and implements a dynamic driving task of a moving object in cooperation with each of the subsystems, the program, when executed by at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to: calculate an error occurring in each of temporarily designed subsystems; tentatively allocate, to each of the subsystems, an allowable deviation that is allowed for an entire driving system; specify an allowable error, which is allowed for each of the subsystems, from a deviation allocated to each of the subsystems based on an evaluation on an error propagating through the driving system; and adjust allocation of the allowable error to each of the subsystems based on a result of comparing the calculated error with an allowable error of the subsystem corresponding to the calculated error.
8. A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium storing a program for a driving system, which includes a plurality of subsystems and implements a dynamic driving task of a moving object in cooperation with each of the subsystems, the program, when executed by at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to: introduce reliability into each of the subsystems as a common measure between each of the subsystems to evaluate a composite factor between the subsystems; allocate the reliability to each of subsystems based on a specification of the driving system; and determine the specification of each of the subsystems such that an error, which is generated in each of the subsystems and propagates through the driving system, falls within an allowable error with a probability of a predetermined reliability or higher.
9. A driving system which includes a plurality of subsystems and implements a dynamic driving task of a moving object in cooperation with each of the subsystems, the plurality of subsystems including a perception system, a determination system, and a control system, the driving system comprising: at least one storage medium that is configured to store an allocation of reliability to each of the subsystems, the allocation of the reliability being a common measure between each of the subsystems and being defined for each allocation category; and at least one processor configured to change a condition for implementing the dynamic driving task based on the allocation of the reliability.
10. The driving system according to claim 9, wherein the storage medium includes a scenario database that constructs a catalog of a scenario, and the at least one processor is further configured to select the scenario in which the moving object is currently placed, and when changing the condition, the at least one processor is further configured to: refer to the allocation of the reliability defined corresponding to the scenario; and determine whether to transition to degeneracy action based on a product value of reliability of the perception system and reliability of the control system.
A patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicated to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term of a patent. 35 U.S.C. 253. The statue does not provide for a terminal disclaimer of only a specified claim or claims. The terminal disclaimer must operate with respect to all claims in the patent. MPEP 804.02.
See 16/853,966
17/367,959
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 “1-7” are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 reads:
An evaluation method of a driving system of a moving object, which includes a perception system, a determination system, and a control system as subsystems, the evaluation method comprising:
specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure, an interaction between each of the subsystems and a real world;
specifying an error occurring in each of the subsystems; and
evaluating the error propagating in accordance with the closed loop.
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims 1-7 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, calculating, determining).
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The abstract ideas are:
specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure, an interaction between each of the subsystems and a real world;
specifying an error occurring in each of the subsystems; and
evaluating the error propagating in accordance with the closed loop. Analyzing the abstract idea we can understand that the abstract idea with the given examples.
specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure, an interaction between each of the subsystems and a real world; thinking about walking, loop of one foot inform of the other.
specifying an error occurring in each of the subsystems; and specifying error or timing and which foot; error left, left.
evaluating the error propagating in accordance with the closed loop. Evaluating the error why left, left, happened.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [receiving data, data gathering, data output] further addressed in WUEC; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Claim 1 does not further recites WURC extra steps.
Analyzing the WURC steps of the abstract idea with the given examples.
we can understand that the abstract idea falls within the WURC Activity MPEP 2106.05(d)(1) Evaluation
improvement consideration WURC consideration MPEP.05(a);
mere instructions to apply an exception consideration MPEP 2106.05(f)
insignificant extra-solution activity consideration MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generic computer performing merely generic computer functions, data gathering, populating tables, sending and receiving data or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
2. introducing reliability; mentally paying attention while walking.
3. error occurring in loop falling withing a probability, i.e. timing while imagining walking, left right or left, left.
4-5. circulates through; imagining walking
Claims 6, 7 are the CRM of claim of the method claim 1 and are rejected using the same analysis. Claim 7 introducing reliability; mentally paying attention while walking.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between “perception system, a determination system, and a control system as the subsystems” and “specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure, an interaction between each of subsystems and a real world for a driving system of a moving object”. The claim reads “specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure, an interaction between each of subsystems and a real world for a driving system of a moving object, which includes a perception system, a determination system, and a control system as the subsystems”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know which one of the: closed loop, loop structure, subsystems, real world, driving system, or the moving object includes “a perception system, a determination system, and a control system as the subsystems”.
Claims 1-7 recite “an interaction between each of the subsystems”; However, only “a control system” has been recited as “a subsystems”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know if there is a single “control system” only labeled as “subsystems” or is there multiply subsystems? Or are the other systems such as “perception system, determination system and control system” all part of the “subsystems”?
Claims 1-7; the limitations of “specifying a closed loop by modeling, as a loop structure”; One of ordinary skill in the art would not know if the closed loop is just specified as a structure or is it actually a structure as “a closed loop modeling structure”?
Claims 1-7 “specifying an error”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know if the error was randomly “specified” or was it based on the molding or the real world?
Claims 2-3, and 7 “Introducing reliability into each of the subsystems”. Only one subsystem is mentions i.e. “a control system as subsystem”. One of ordinary sill would be confused as to what “each” is referring to when only one is mentioned.
Claims 2-3, and 7 “introducing reliability”; One of ordinary skill in the art would not know what is introduced and why is it reliable? The limitation is very abstract, one of ordinary in the art would not understand what the claim is referring to.
Claim 3 introduces a quotation mark “?” randomly in the claims. “?” are not allowed in the claim language especially appearing in random manner.
Claim 3 “falls within an allowable error” seems to refer to errors which are pre-defined, however “that is greater than or equal to” seams to be a value or range i.e. mixing types with units. Additionally, the claim refers back to type “predetermined reliability”; however, the type “reliability” is compared to outcome “error”.
Claim 4 and 5 “a loop that circulates through the moving object in the real world…. the loop is completed within the moving object”. A loop generally is a value relating to a function that is feedback i.e. logic and cannot “circulate through a moving body in the real work” and can not “be completed within the moving object” as it must be executed unless there is a physical machine that is exclusively designed for it such as a mechanical governor. No such machine is presented in the specifications.
Claim Rejections- Prior Art
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. As such the claims cannot be properly examined. The claims must address all the rejections made above before a proper search can be conducted. However, Applicant is encouraged to review the art of Lepird US 20220260989 when preparing the amendments or response to the office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 11-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664