DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Application filed on August 8, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 8, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites “AV”, however the full word for this acronym has not been stated previously in the claim. The first instance of this should be changed to -- Autonomous Vehicle (AV) --.
In regards to claims 2-18, the claims are dependent upon an objected claim and are therefore objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-18 recite a method/process, therefore claims 1-18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 19-20 recite a system/apparatus, therefore claims 19-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 19 includes limitations that recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 19 recites:
A computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media that collectively store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
obtaining data indicative of one or more capabilities of at least one autonomous vehicle (AV);
obtaining data indicative of vehicle service dynamics in an operational domain over a period of time;
determining one or more resource performance parameters for a vehicle fleet associated with potential deployment in the operational domain, the one or more resource performance parameters being based at least in part on the one or more capabilities of the at least one AV and the vehicle service dynamics in the operational domain;
determining a measure of breakeven utilization for the vehicle fleet, the measure of breakeven utilization being based at least in part on a number of AVs having a total resource outflow per unit that is equal to a total resource outflow per unit for a fleet of non-autonomous vehicles; and
initiating an action associated with the operational domain based at least in part on the one or more resource performance parameters.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mental process. For example, " determining one or more resource performance parameters…" and " determining a measure of breakeven utilization..." encompass mental processes as a human can perform these limitations using observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. “determining one or more resource performance parameters…” involves a human observing and/or evaluating performance parameters of a vehicle fleet and “determining a measure of breakeven utilization..." involves a human making an evaluation and/or judgment or using paper and pencil to breakeven utilization point for a fleet. Thus, the claim recites at least a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
A computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media that collectively store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
obtaining data indicative of one or more capabilities of at least one autonomous vehicle (AV);
obtaining data indicative of vehicle service dynamics in an operational domain over a period of time;
determining one or more resource performance parameters for a vehicle fleet associated with potential deployment in the operational domain, the one or more resource performance parameters being based at least in part on the one or more capabilities of the at least one AV and the vehicle service dynamics in the operational domain;
determining a measure of breakeven utilization for the vehicle fleet, the measure of breakeven utilization being based at least in part on a number of AVs having a total resource outflow per unit that is equal to a total resource outflow per unit for a fleet of non-autonomous vehicles; and
initiating an action associated with the operational domain based at least in part on the one or more resource performance parameters.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of " A computing system”, “one or more processors”, and “one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media…”, these limitations are merely generic computing components to apply the above noted abstract idea. Additionally, the claim limitation “obtaining data indicative of one or more capabilities …”, “obtaining data indicative of vehicle service dynamics…”, and “ initiating an action…” does not amount to an inventive concept since it is insignificant extra-solution activity as it is merely a form of data collection and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). It is noted that “initiating an action…” is merely claimed generically and could be reasonably interpreted as merely outputting or displaying the results of the determining step . The examiner submits that these limitations are mere data collection and outputting components to apply the above-noted abstract idea within an indicated field of use (MPEP §2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 19 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “obtaining data indicative of one or more capabilities …”, “obtaining data indicative of vehicle service dynamics…”, and “ initiating an action…” amounts to extra-solution data gathering and outputting. Additionally, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). With respect to the displaying function, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. With respect to “obtaining data indicative of one or more capabilities …” and “obtaining data indicative of vehicle service dynamics…”, it was ruled within Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which are recited within MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that mere data collection or receiving/obtaining and transmitting of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic matter, as it is here. Additionally, " A computing system”, “one or more processors”, and “one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media…” are each generic computing components that merely apply the judicial exception (See 2106.05(f)).
Claims 1 and 20 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 19, and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-18 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1, 19, and 20, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significantly more" for similar reasons.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12085957. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
In regards to claim 1:
Current Application (18/798,295)
U.S. Patent 12085957
A computer-implemented method for determining AV fleets, comprising:
A computer-implemented method for determining autonomous vehicle fleets, comprising:
obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, data indicative of one or more capabilities of at least one AV;
obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, data indicative of one or more capabilities of at least one autonomous vehicle;
obtaining, by the computing system, data indicative of vehicle service dynamics in an operational domain over a period of time;
obtaining, by the computing system, data indicative of vehicle service dynamics in an operational domain over a period of time;
determining, by the computing system, one or more resource performance parameters for a vehicle fleet associated with potential deployment in the operational domain, the one or more resource performance parameters being based at least in part on the one or more capabilities of the at least one AV and the vehicle service dynamics in the operational domain;
determining, by the computing system, a plurality of resource performance parameters respectively for a plurality of autonomous vehicle fleets associated with potential deployment in the operational domain, each autonomous vehicle fleet associated with a different number of autonomous vehicles, the resource performance parameter for each autonomous vehicle fleet based at least in part on the one or more capabilities of the at least one autonomous vehicle and the vehicle service dynamics in the operational domain;
determining, by the computing system, a measure of breakeven utilization for the vehicle fleet, the measure of breakeven utilization being based at least in part on a number of AVs having a total resource outflow per unit that is equal to a total resource outflow per unit for a fleet of non-autonomous vehicles; and
determining, by the computing system, a measure of breakeven utilization for the plurality of autonomous vehicle fleets, the measure of breakeven utilization is based at least in part on a number of autonomous vehicles having a total resource outflow per unit that is equal to a total resource outflow per unit for a fleet of non-autonomous vehicles; and
initiating, by the computing system, an action associated with the operational domain based at least in part on the one or more resource performance parameters.
initiating, by the computing system, an action associated with the operational domain based at least in part on the plurality of resource performance parameters.
In regards to claims 5-11, the claims are equivalent to claims 5-11, respectively, of the previous U.S. Patent and therefore are rejected.
In regards to claims 12-20, the claims are equivalent to claims 12, 12, 13-16, and 16-18, respectively, of the previous U.S. Patent and therefore are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected due to the above double patenting and/or 101 rejections, but would be allowable if these rejections were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Berdinis et al. (US 20180211217; hereinafter Berdinis; already of record from IDS) in view of Abari et al. (US 20190196503; already of record from IDS; hereinafter Abari) in view of Kentley-Klay et al. (US 20250229808; hereinafter Kentley-Klay). Berdinis in view of Abari further in view of Kentley-Klay teaches of a computer-implemented method for determining AV fleets, comprising:
obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, data indicative of one or more capabilities of at least one AV;
obtaining, by the computing system, data indicative of vehicle service dynamics in an operational domain over a period of time;
determining, by the computing system, one or more resource performance parameters for a vehicle fleet associated with potential deployment in the operational domain, the one or more resource performance parameters being based at least in part on the one or more capabilities of the at least one AV and the vehicle service dynamics in the operational domain;
…
initiating, by the computing system, an action associated with the operational domain based at least in part on the one or more resource performance parameters.
However, Berdinis in view of Abari further in view of Kentley-Klay does not fully teach of determining, by the computing system, a measure of breakeven utilization for the vehicle fleet, the measure of breakeven utilization being based at least in part on a number of AVs having a total resource outflow per unit that is equal to a total resource outflow per unit for a fleet of non-autonomous vehicles. It is noted that the prior art teaches of comparing multiple vehicle fleets to determine which fleet has the more desirable total resource outflow in order to select a fleet to use. However, the prior art does not specifically teach of measuring a breakeven for the fleet, where the measure of breakeven utilization being based at least in part on a number of AVs having a total resource outflow per unit that is equal to a total resource outflow per unit for a fleet of non-autonomous vehicles, in combination with the remaining claim limitations. Therefore the claim contains allowable subject matter.
In regards to claims 19-20, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim1, and are therefore allowable subject matter on the same premise.
In regards to claims 2-18, the claims are dependent upon a claim containing allowable subject matter and are therefore allowable subject matter as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle J Kingsland whose telephone number is (571)272-3268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3663