DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 7/25/2024.
Claims 1-13 are 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024, 9/10/2024, and 7/25/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated vehicle, the behavior planner having a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to break down a given situation into the partial situations of the database and, based on the associated evaluation models, to determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the given situation, as a combination of boundary conditions of individual partial situations assciated with the given situation, the method comprising:
providing each of the evaluation models of the partial situations in a declarative program representation which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation;
predefining at least one test situation is predefined as a composition of selected partial situations;
combining the declarative program representations of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations to form a combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations; and
determining formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation based on the combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of combining the declarative program representations of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations to form a combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “declarative program representations” is data provided in a declarative form. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “evaluation models,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data used for evaluation purposes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “partial situations” is data representative of a portion of a situation, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “combined program representation” is data representative of a combination of information. No particular sensors or operations of the partially automated vehicle are required to perform the step of “combining.” Generally recited data is merely combined.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “computer-implemented.” That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. declarative program representations of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. form a combined program representation). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “computer-implemented”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “computer-implemented” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of determining formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation based on the combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle” is data pertaining to permissible behavior options of a vehicle and does not require actual operation of the vehicle. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “test situation,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to a situation in which testing occurs.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “computer-implemented.” That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. the combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations and the test situation) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “computer-implemented”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “computer-implemented” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of based on the associated evaluation models, to determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the given situation, as a combination of boundary conditions of individual partial situations assciated with the given situation. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. the associated evaluation models and the given situation) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further, the mere nominal recitation of an “at least partially automated vehicle” as being an object upon which the “behavior planner” is used does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
providing each of the evaluation models of the partial situations in a declarative program representation which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation;
predefining at least one test situation is predefined as a composition of selected partial situations.
The “providing” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general providing of each of the evaluation models of the partial situations in a declarative program representation) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “predefining” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general predefining of a test situation as a composition of selected partial situations) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recites additional elements of the behavior planner having a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to break down a given situation into the partial situations of the database.
The element of the “database” merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to store data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). No technological details are recited with respect to the database itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the database, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the providing and predefining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites a database as a conventional component commonly used in validation of a behavior planner for an automated vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including 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, indicate that mere storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of wherein each partial situation is defined as a situation class that is at least partially determined by at least one of the following elements: (i) an ego vehicle having a behavior model, (ii) at least one traffic infrastructure element, (iii) a general situation context, (iv) at least one other road user having a behavior model;
wherein each partial situation together with the associated evaluation model can be parameterized in a situation-specific manner and/or can be instantiated by data input having situation-specific information, and the predefining of the test situation includes a defined parameterization and/or instantiation of the selected partial situations or the evaluation models of the selected partial situations.
Further limiting “each partial situation” to be defined as a situation class that is at least partially determined by at least one of the following elements: (i) an ego vehicle having a behavior model, (ii) at least one traffic infrastructure element, (iii) a general situation context, (iv) at least one other road user having a behavior model represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting each partial situation to be defined as a situation class that is at least partially determined by at least one of the following elements: (i) an ego vehicle having a behavior model, (ii) at least one traffic infrastructure element, (iii) a general situation context, (iv) at least one other road user having a behavior model does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Additionally, further limiting the “predefining” step to include a defined parameterization and/or instantiation of the selected partial situations or the evaluation models of the selected partial situations represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the “predefining” step to include a defined parameterization and/or instantiation of the selected partial situations or the evaluation models of the selected partial situations does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of wherein at least some of the evaluation models are based on breaking down the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of road users involved and are generated in as Zwicky boxes.
Further limiting the “evaluation models” to be based on breaking down the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of road users involved and are generated in as Zwicky boxes represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the evaluation models to be based on breaking down the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of road users involved and are generated in as Zwicky boxes does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of wherein the evaluation models of the partial situations are each transformed into a declarative program representation which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the particular partial situation, including into an answer set program representation, so that semantics of the combination of the evaluation models is independent of representation. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “answer set program representation” is data representative of ASP commonly known in the art. Particular sensors and operations performed by the vehicle are not used in performing the claimed transformation.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. evaluation models of the partial situations) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. transforming the evaluation models of the partial situations evaluation models of the partial situations into a declarative program representation). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of wherein test situations are selected such that they lie within a predefined operational design domain.
Further limiting the “test situations” to be selected such that they lie within a predefined operational design domain represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the test situations to be selected such that they lie within a predefined operational design domain does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of wherein test situations are predefined automatically using a configuration database in which at least the following data are stored for each test situation: a. data for identifying the partial situations of the test situation, and/or b. data for parameterizing the partial situations of the test situation, and/or c. data for instantiating the partial situations of the test situation.
Further limiting “each test situation” to include data for identifying the partial situations of the test situation, and/or b. data for parameterizing the partial situations of the test situation, and/or c. data for instantiating the partial situations of the test situation represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the each test situation to include data for identifying the partial situations of the test situation, and/or b. data for parameterizing the partial situations of the test situation, and/or c. data for instantiating the partial situations of the test situation does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of wherein a results database is generated, in which the formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle determined for each predefined test situation are stored.
The “results database” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general storing of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle determined for each predefined test situation) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the results database itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the results database, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of wherein the results database is automatically searched using previously defined search queries in order to identify specific test situations and/or specific behavior options of the vehicle. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “search queries” is data representative of search requests. Particular sensors and control operations of the vehicle are not used to perform the claimed search. The search relies on generally recited data and generic computer components.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. previously defined search queries) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. automatically searching to identify specific test situations or behavior options of the vehicle). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 9
Claim 9. A computer-implemented system for validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated vehicle, wherein the behavior planner has a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to break down a given situation into partial situations of the database and, based on the associated evaluation models, to determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the given situation, as a combination of boundary conditions of the partial situations, the system comprising:
a transformation tool configured to generate declarative program representations for the evaluation models of the database of the behavior planner, wherein the transformation tool is configured in such a way that semantics of a combination of the evaluation models are independent of representation; and
a composition tool configured to generate combined program representations as a combination of the declarative program representations of evaluation models of selected partial situations, the composition of which represents a predefined test situation.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of a transformation tool configured to generate declarative program representations for the evaluation models of the database of the behavior planner, wherein the transformation tool is configured in such a way that semantics of a combination of the evaluation models are independent of representation. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “transformation tool” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as computer-implemented software. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation of “declarative program representations,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant’s disclosure, is data provided in a declarative form. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “evaluation models,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data used for evaluation purposes. No particular sensors or operations of the partially automated vehicle are required to perform the step of “generating.” Generally recited data is merely combined.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “computer-implemented.” That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. the evaluation models) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. generate declarative program representations). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “computer-implemented”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “computer-implemented” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of a composition tool configured to generate combined program representations as a combination of the declarative program representations of evaluation models of selected partial situations, the composition of which represents a predefined test situation. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “composition tool” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as computer-implemented software. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “partial situations” is data representative of a portion of a situation, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “combined program representation” is data representative of a combination of information.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “computer-implemented.” That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. the declarative program representations of evaluation models of selected partial situations) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. generate combined program representations). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “computer-implemented”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “computer-implemented” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of based on the associated evaluation models, to determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the given situation, as a combination of boundary conditions of individual partial situations. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. the associated evaluation models and the given situation) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further, the mere nominal recitation of an “at least partially automated vehicle” as being an object upon which the “behavior planner” is used does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of the behavior planner has a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to break down a given situation into partial situations of the database.
The element of the “database” merely acts in their ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to store data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). No technological details are recited with respect to the database itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the database, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the database functions were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites a database as a conventional component commonly used in validation of a behavior planner for an automated vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including 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, indicate that mere storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 10-13
Dependent claims 10-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of wherein the transformation tool is configured to transform evaluation models, which are each based on a break down of the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of the road users involved and are in the form of Zwicky boxes, into an answer set program representation. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “answer set program representation” is data representative of ASP commonly known in the art. Particular sensors and operations performed by the vehicle are not used in performing the claimed transformation.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. evaluation models, defined as based on a break down of the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of the road users and are in the form of Zwicky boxes) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. transforming the evaluation models into an answer set program representation). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of wherein the composition tool is configured to construct test situations by selecting partial situations of the database, and parameterizing and/or instantiating the selected partial situations or the evaluation models associated with the selected partial situations.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. partial situations of the database) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. construct test situations and parameterize and/or initiate the selected partial situations). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of wherein the composition tool has a configuration database in which at least the following data are stored for each test situation: a. data for identifying the partial situations of the test situation, and/or b. data for parameterizing the partial situations of the test situation, and/or c. data for instantiating the partial situations of the test situation.
Further limiting the “composition tool” to include a configuration database with particular data stored for each test situation represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the composition tool to include a configuration database with particular data stored for each test situation does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
No technological details are recited with respect to the configuration database itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the configuration database, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of a results database configured to store test results in the form of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle that have been determined for a predefined test situation, wherein the results database can be automatically searched using previously defined search queries in order to identify specific test situations and/or specific behavior options of the vehicle. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “search queries” is data representative of search requests. Particular sensors and control operations of the vehicle are not used to perform the claimed search. The search relies on generally recited data and generic computer components.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. previously defined search queries) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. automatically searching to identify specific test situations or behavior options of the vehicle). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “results database” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general storing of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle determined for each predefined test situation) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the results database itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the results database, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claims 10-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 9.
Claims 1-13 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a transformation tool in claim 9, and
a composition tool in claim 9.
These limitations are interpreted as computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations, where computer-implemented software performs the algorithms described on pages 16-17 of the specification filed 7/25/2024.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites individual partial situations assciated with in the tenth line of claim 1 (emphasis added). The emphasized limitation should recite “associated.”
Claim 1 recites predefining at least one test situation is predefined as a composition of selected partial situations (emphasis added). The emphasized portion should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation the partial situations in the twelfth line of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it cannot be reasonably determined if this limitation is referencing the “previously defined partial situations” or the “individual partial situations.”
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 1 by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nassar et al. (US 2021/0294944 A1), hereinafter Nassar.
Claim 1
Nassar discloses the claimed computer-implemented method for validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated vehicle (see ¶0025, depicting system 100A of Figure 1, regarding that process 118 tests virtual instances of an autonomous vehicle against defined scenarios), the behavior planner having a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to break down a given situation into the partial situations of the database (see ¶0026, regarding data store 120 stores a domain ontology that provides relationships within an operational design domain based on a defined declarative description, where scenario determiner 124 takes the declarative descriptions and fills in various metrics not explicitly defined in the scenario for building out different variations of the defined scenario) and, based on the associated evaluation models, to determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the given situation, as a combination of boundary conditions of individual partial situations associated with the given situation (see ¶0031-0035, with respect to Figure 1, regarding analyzer 132 uses different types of checkers and evaluators to evaluate behaviors in variations of a defined scenario, e.g., conditions in which an ego-vehicle keeps a safe distance from the car in front of it).
The limitation of “partial situations” is merely defined as being the result of breaking down a “given situation.” The partial and given situations are not defined in the claim and may be reasonably taught by any of the information contained in the domain ontology of data store 120 of Nassar, e.g., information related to computational simulation objects, groupings of simulation objects, or relationships and rules governing the interactions between various simulation objects (see ¶0026). Given that the information contained in the domain ontology is used to generate particular scenarios (see ¶0036), the information contained in the domain ontology may reasonably represent “partial situations” of a “given situation.”
Further, the “evaluation models” are merely defined as stored in the database in association with the “partial situations” and as a basis for determining boundary conditions; therefore, the evaluation models may reasonably be taught by any of the corresponding information contained in the domain ontology of data store 120 of Nassar, since the information contained in the domain ontology is used to generate particular scenarios (see ¶0036) to be tested (see ¶0030-0035). The determination of “boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle” may be reasonably taught by the evaluations performed by the different checkers and evaluators in Nassar, where the behavior of the vehicle in variations of a scenario is evaluated with respect to desired results (see ¶0030-0035). The limitations of the claim are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and limitations from the Applicant’s specification are not incorporated into the claim language.
Nassar further discloses that the method comprising:
providing each of the evaluation models of the partial situations in a declarative program representation (i.e. defined declarative description) which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in each partial situation (see ¶0026, regarding that data store 120 provides a domain ontology to provide specifications related to actor behaviors and relationships within an operational design domain based on a defined declarative description, where the ontology provides information related to computational simulation objects, relationships and rules governing the interactions between various simulation objects, etc., where the domain ontology is used to determine concrete values and/or parameters corresponding to defined and undefined criteria related to the declarative description in order to generate scenarios and observers for use by simulation implementer 128, as described in ¶0038, such that analyzer 132 may implement checkers and evaluators that determine and enforce “boundary conditions” for simulated behavior of the variations of the defined scenario, as described in ¶0031-0035);
predefining at least one test situation (i.e. scenario) is predefined as a composition of selected partial situations (see ¶0027, regarding that scenario designer 122 receives declarative description that defines a scenario, where scenario determiner 124 generates variations of the defined scenario, e.g., covering all relevant combinations of multiple signals in a certain composition, as described in ¶0028);
combining the declarative program representations of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations to form a combined program representation (i.e. variations of a defined scenario) of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations (see ¶0029, regarding that scenario generator 126 generates variations of a defined scenario, e.g., in different physical environments, with different actors, differing path structures, different speeds, etc., where the variations have been built out using various metrics based on the domain ontology, as described in ¶0026-0028); and
determining formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the test situation based on the combined program representation of the evaluation models of the selected partial situations (see ¶0031-0035, regarding analyzer 132 uses different types of checkers and evaluators to evaluate behaviors in variations of a defined scenario, e.g., conditions in which an ego-vehicle keeps a safe distance from the car in front of it).
Claim 2
Nassar further discloses that each partial situation is defined as a situation class that is at least partially determined by at least one of the following elements (i) an ego vehicle having a behavior model, (ii) at least one traffic infrastructure element, (iii) a general situation context, (iv) at least one other road user having a behavior model (see ¶0045-0048, with respect to Figures 2B-2E, regarding actor ontology 200B, road network ontology 200C, environment ontology 200D, and control ontology 200E), wherein each partial situation together with the associated evaluation model can be parameterized in a situation-specific manner and/or can be instantiated by data input having situation-specific information, and the predefining of the test situation includes a defined parameterization and/or instantiation of the selected partial situations or the evaluation models of the selected partial situations (see ¶0036, regarding that the domain ontology 130 is used to determine concrete values and/or parameters corresponding to defined and undefined criteria related to the declarative description in order to generate one or more scenarios and observers).
Claim 4
Nassar further discloses that the evaluation models of the partial situations are each transformed into a declarative program representation which enables the determination of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the particular partial situation, including into an answer set program representation, so that semantics of the combination of the evaluation models is independent of representation (see ¶0026-0028, regarding the declarative description is used to determine representatives to fill various metrics that are not explicitly defined in the scenario based on the domain ontology for building out the different variations of the defined scenario). While an answer set program is not explicitly recited in Nassar, the use of first-order logic and declarative descriptives to solve a search problem (see ¶0004) is analogous to the function of an “answer set program representation.”
Claim 5
Nassar further discloses that test situations are selected such that they lie within a predefined operational design domain (see ¶0026, regarding the domain ontology provides relationships within an operational design domain).
Claim 6
Nassar further discloses that test situations are predefined automatically using a configuration database in which at least the following data are stored for each test situation: a. data for identifying the partial situations of the test situation, and/or b. data for parameterizing the partial situations of the test situation, and/or c. data for instantiating the partial situations of the test situation (see ¶0027, regarding that scenario designer 122 receives declarative description that defines a scenario, where the declarative description is associated with specifications related to actor behaviors and relationships in data store 120, as described in ¶0026).
Claim 9
Nassar discloses the claimed computer-implemented system for validating a behavior planner for an at least partially automated vehicle (see ¶0025, depicting system 100A of Figure 1, regarding that process 118 tests virtual instances of an autonomous vehicle against defined scenarios), wherein the behavior planner has a database having previously defined partial situations and at least one associated evaluation model for each partial situation in order to break down a given situation into partial situations of the database (see ¶0026, regarding data store 120 stores a domain ontology that provides relationships within an operational design domain based on a defined declarative description, where scenario determiner 124 takes the declarative descriptions and fills in various metrics not explicitly defined in the scenario for building out different variations of the defined scenario) and, based on the associated evaluation models, to determine boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle in the given situation, as a combination of boundary conditions of the partial situations (see ¶0031-0035, with respect to Figure 1, regarding analyzer 132 uses different types of checkers and evaluators to evaluate behaviors in variations of a defined scenario, e.g., conditions in which an ego-vehicle keeps a safe distance from the car in front of it). See the explanations provided in the rejection of claim 1 regarding the interpretation of these limitations.
Nassar further discloses that the system comprising:
a transformation tool configured to generate declarative program representations for the evaluation models of the database of the behavior planner, wherein the transformation tool is configured in such a way that semantics of a combination of the evaluation models are independent of representation (see ¶0026-0028, regarding the declarative description is used to determine representatives to fill various metrics that are not explicitly defined in the scenario based on the domain ontology for building out the different variations of the defined scenario); and
a composition tool configured to generate combined program representations as a combination of the declarative program representations of evaluation models of selected partial situations, the composition of which represents a predefined test situation (see ¶0029, regarding that scenario generator 126 generates variations of a defined scenario, e.g., in different physical environments, with different actors, differing path structures, different speeds, etc., where the variations have been built out using various metrics based on the domain ontology, as described in ¶0026-0028).
Claim 11
Nassar further discloses that the composition tool is configured to construct test situations by selecting partial situations of the database (¶0027, regarding that scenario designer 122 receives declarative description that defines a scenario, where the declarative description is associated with specifications related to actor behaviors and relationships in data store 120, as described in ¶0026), and parameterizing and/or instantiating the selected partial situations or the evaluation models associated with the selected partial situations (see ¶0036, regarding that the domain ontology 130 is used to determine concrete values and/or parameters corresponding to defined and undefined criteria related to the declarative description in order to generate one or more scenarios and observers).
Claim 12
Nassar further discloses that the composition tool has a configuration database in which at least the following data are stored for each test situation: a. data for identifying the partial situations of the test situation, and/or b. data for parameterizing the partial situations of the test situation, and/or c. data for instantiating the partial situations of the test situation (see ¶0027, regarding that scenario designer 122 receives declarative description that defines a scenario, where the declarative description is associated with specifications related to actor behaviors and relationships in data store 120, as described in ¶0026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A 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 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassar in view of Ritchey (“General Morphological Analysis,” 2013, Swedish Morphological Society), hereinafter Ritchey.
Claim 3
Nassar further discloses that at least some of the evaluation models are based on breaking down the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of road users involved (see ¶0026, regarding data store 120 stores a domain ontology that provides relationships within an operational design domain based on a defined declarative description, where scenario determiner 124 takes the declarative descriptions and fills in various metrics not explicitly defined in the scenario for building out different variations of the defined scenario, where domain ontologies include actor ontology 200B that includes dynamic actors such as different types of vehicles in the environment, as described in ¶0045, with respect to Figure 2B) and are generated in as Zwicky boxes (see ¶0026-0029, regarding the generation of variations of the scenario by filling in various metrics not explicitly defined in the scenario using the domain ontology, described in ¶0051).
While the term “Zwicky boxes” is not explicitly recited in Nassar, the domain ontologies and the method of generating scenario variations function similar to the general morphological analysis technique developed by Fritz Zwicky, as discussed in Ritchey. No particular operations with respect to the “Zwicky boxes” are claimed; therefore, it would be reasonable to express the “evaluation models” in any particular form.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generation of variations of a scenario taught by Nassar, so as to be expressed in the form of Zwicky boxes, in light of Ritchey, with the predictable result of using an old and well-known technique of generating variations of a scenario using a physical space representation of variables (see seventh and eighth paragraphs under General Morphology section, with respect to Figures 1a-b) without constraints to mixing and comparing different types of parameters (fourteenth paragraph under General Morphology section of Ritchey).
Claim 10
Nassar discloses the claimed the transformation tool is configured to transform evaluation models, which are each based on a break down of the associated partial situation into zone graphs and a morphological behavior analysis of the road users involved (see ¶0026, regarding data store 120 stores a domain ontology that provides relationships within an operational design domain based on a defined declarative description, where scenario determiner 124 takes the declarative descriptions and fills in various metrics not explicitly defined in the scenario for building out different variations of the defined scenario, where domain ontologies include actor ontology 200B that includes dynamic actors such as different types of vehicles in the environment, as described in ¶0045, with respect to Figure 2B) and are in the form of Zwicky boxes (see ¶0026-0029, regarding the generation of variations of the scenario by filling in various metrics not explicitly defined in the scenario using the domain ontology, described in ¶0051), into an answer set program representation (see ¶0026-0028, regarding the declarative description is used to determine representatives to fill various metrics that are not explicitly defined in the scenario based on the domain ontology for building out the different variations of the defined scenario). While an “answer set program” is not explicitly recited in Nassar, the use of first-order logic and declarative descriptives to solve a search problem (see ¶0004) is analogous to the function of an “answer set program representation.”
While the term “Zwicky boxes” is not explicitly recited in Nassar, the domain ontologies and the method of generating scenario variations function similar to the general morphological analysis technique developed by Fritz Zwicky, as discussed in Ritchey. No particular operations with respect to the “Zwicky boxes” are claimed; therefore, it would be reasonable to express the “evaluation models” in any particular form.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generation of variations of a scenario taught by Nassar, so as to be expressed in the form of Zwicky boxes, in light of Ritchey, with the predictable result of using a old and well-known technique of generating variations of a scenario using a physical space representation of variables (see seventh and eighth paragraphs under General Morphology section, with respect to Figures 1a-b, of Ritchey) without constraints to mixing and comparing different types of parameters (fourteenth paragraph under General Morphology section of Ritchey).
Claims 7, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassar in view of Kabzan et al. (US 11,550,851 B1), hereinafter Kabzan.
Claim 7
Nassar does not further disclose that a results database is generated, in which the formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle determined for each predefined test situation are stored. However, it would be obvious to incorporate a database for storing the results of the tested scenarios of Nassar, in light of Kabzan.
Specifically, Kabzan teaches the known technique in which a results database is generated (see col. 20, lines 17-35, regarding that test history is recorded in the tested scenarios data store 710), in which the test history of tested scenarios (similar to the formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle taught by Nassar) determined for each predefined test situation (i.e. scenario) are stored (see col. 20, lines 19-46).
The tested scenarios of Nassar rely on simulations, while the tested scenarios of Kabzan relay on real-world data. However, it is the technique of storing the results of tested scenarios in a database that is modified by Kabzan; therefore, the particular results of the tested scenarios do not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Nassar and Kabzan are directed to the same purpose, i.e. creating driving scenarios to train and validate AV software, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Nassar, so as to further include a results database is generated, in which the formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle determined for each predefined test situation are stored, in light of Kabzan, with the predictable result of maintaining a comprehensive record of the training history (col. 20, lines 19-23 of Kabzan).
Claim 8
Kabzan further teaches that the results database is automatically searched using previously defined search queries in order to identify specific test situations and/or specific behavior options of the vehicle (see col. 20, lines 23-46, regarding that the tested scenarios data store 710 is queried to determine whether a set of attributes is to return an untested, rare, or edge-case vehicle scenario).
Claim 13
Nassar does not further disclose a results database configured to store test results in the form of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle that have been determined for a predefined test situation, wherein the results database can be automatically searched using previously defined search queries in order to identify specific test situations and/or specific behavior options of the vehicle. However, it would be obvious to incorporate a database for storing the results of the tested scenarios of Nassar, in light of Kabzan.
Specifically, Kabzan teaches the known technique in which a results database is generated (see col. 20, lines 17-35, regarding that test history is recorded in the tested scenarios data store 710), in which the test history of tested scenarios (similar to the formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle taught by Nassar) determined for each predefined test situation (i.e. scenario) are stored (see col. 20, lines 19-46), the results database can be automatically searched using previously defined search queries in order to identify specific test situations and/or specific behavior options of the vehicle (see col. 20, lines 23-46, regarding that the tested scenarios data store 710 is queried to determine whether a set of attributes is to return an untested, rare, or edge-case vehicle scenario).
The tested scenarios of Nassar rely on simulations, while the tested scenarios of Kabzan relay on real-world data. However, it is the technique of storing the results of tested scenarios in a database that is modified by Kabzan; therefore, the particular results of the tested scenarios do not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Nassar and Kabzan are directed to the same purpose, i.e. creating driving scenarios to train and validate AV software, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Nassar, so as to further include a results database configured to store test results in the form of formally explorable boundary conditions for permissible behavior options of the vehicle that have been determined for a predefined test situation, wherein the results database can be automatically searched using previously defined search queries in order to identify specific test situations and/or specific behavior options of the vehicle, in light of Kabzan, with the predictable result of maintaining a comprehensive record of the training history (col. 20, lines 19-23 of Kabzan) that can desirably be used to identify untested, rare, or edge-case vehicle scenarios for further training of the model (col. 19, lines 59-61 of Kabzan).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Bouillon et al. (US 2023/0359780 A1) teaches the technique of testing a plurality of scenarios for autonomous driving (see abstract; ¶0002), and Zhang et al. (US 12,415,540 B2) teaches training an autonomous system using a plurality of targeted scenarios where feature vectors are combined (see claim 10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661