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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites a model generation method to be executed by a computer, the model generation method comprising:
collecting defective scene data related to a scene that is evaluated as insufficient performance during operations of automatic control using a control model of a mobile body; [abstract idea – mental process]
generating a patch model for supplementing a performance of the control model for the scene evaluated as insufficient performance from the collected defective scene data; [abstract idea – mental process]
and outputting the generated patch model.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers limitations which may be performed in the human mind. Regarding the limitations of this claim, the limitations “collecting defective scene data related to a scene that is evaluated as insufficient performance during operations of automatic control using a control model of a mobile body;” in the context of this claim encompass a person making an observation- observing information regarding a scene which has been determined to represent insufficient performance of automatic control using a control model of a mobile body. In other words encompasses a person observing the scene when an automatic vehicle’s control model is operating poorly. The limitations “generating a patch model for supplementing a performance of the control model for the scene evaluated as insufficient performance from the collected defective scene data;” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining how the control of a mobile body should change in the event the current control regime is insufficient. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
collecting defective scene data related to a scene that is evaluated as insufficient performance during operations of automatic control using a control model of a mobile body; [abstract idea – mental process]
generating a patch model for supplementing a performance of the control model for the scene evaluated as insufficient performance from the collected defective scene data; [abstract idea – mental process]
and outputting the generated patch model. [insignificant post-solution activity]
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.
The limitation “and outputting the generated patch model.” is a mere post-solution activity of transmitting the results of a determination, without a clear recipient.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 receiving steps and the displaying step 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 that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, 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), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrichs (US 20240140453), herein after referred to as Friedrichs, in view of Lu, herein after referred to as Lu.
Regarding Claim 1, Friedrichs discloses:
collecting defective scene data (see at least [0017] “receives as an input signals corresponding to actions generated by the trained autonomous control model that will performed or are being performed by the automated control system.”)
related to a scene that is evaluated as insufficient performance during operations of automatic control using a control model of a mobile body; (see at least [0019] “when the fallback layer detects poor performance of the trained autonomous control model, the event or events leading into the action defined or performed by the trained autonomous control model are flagged.”)
generating a patch (see at least [0053] “ the fallback layer 330 may determine and implement a fallback action. The fallback action may include, for example but not limited to, a stop operation, an evasive maneuver, a lane centering operation, or an adjustment to the motion trajectory for implementation by the virtual vehicle.”)
for supplementing a performance of the control model for the scene evaluated as insufficient performance from the collected defective scene data; (see at least [0053] “If the fallback layer 330 determines at block 508 that the output of the trained autonomous control model 244b fails meet the one or more predefined conditions 240c, “NO” at block 508, the method continues to block 512 and/or block 514. In embodiments, at block 512, the fallback layer 330 may determine and implement a fallback action.”)
and outputting the generated patch model. (see at least [0053] “ In embodiments, if a fallback action is determined to meet the one or more predefined conditions 240c, the fallback action may be utilized to update the trained autonomous control model 244b”)
Friedrichs does not explicitly disclose:
[patch] model
In the same field of endeavor, Lu discloses:
[patch] model (see at least [0042] “ analyzing the VAR data to generate either design data or patch data that describes a modification for one or more ADAS systems or an autonomous driving system that would have resulted in the collision being avoided or made the collision less likely to occur;”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the autonomous vehicle control modeling field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Friedrichs to generate a patch model rather than just a patch action, as taught by Lu to modify an autonomous driving system based on collision data [0042].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Friedrichs discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Friedrichs further discloses:
wherein the patch model is deployed to expand an output portion of the control mode without changing an existing portion of the control model, (see at least [0053] “If the fallback layer 330 determines at block 508 that the output of the trained autonomous control model 244b fails meet the one or more predefined conditions 240c, “NO” at block 508, the method continues to block 512 and/or block 514. In embodiments, at block 512, the fallback layer 330 may determine and implement a fallback action. The fallback action may include, for example but not limited to, a stop operation, an evasive maneuver, a lane centering operation, or an adjustment to the motion trajectory for implementation by the virtual vehicle.”)
and the expanded output portion is configured to derive a control command that conforms to the scene evaluated as insufficient performance. (see at least [0053] “if a fallback action is determined to meet the one or more predefined conditions 240c, the fallback action may be utilized to update the trained autonomous control model 244b such that the trained autonomous control model 244b may implement such an action or a similar action when it encounters similar situations in the future.”)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Friedrichs discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Friedrichs further discloses:
using a control command derived by the patch model instead of a control command derived by the control model, or modifying the control command derived by the control model with the patch model. (see at least [0053] “the fallback action may be utilized to update the trained autonomous control model 244b such that the trained autonomous control model 244b may implement such an action or a similar action when it encounters similar situations in the future.”)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Friedrichs discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Friedrichs further discloses:
wherein the mobile body is a vehicle. (see at least [0015] “ The systems and methods enable improved training of autonomous control systems, such as autonomous vehicle control systems.”)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrichs (US 20240140453), herein after referred to as Friedrichs, in view of Lu, herein after referred to as Lu, and Kandemir (US 20240071048), herein after referred to as Kandemir.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Friedrichs discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Friedrichs does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the patch model is a new control model that coexists separately from the control model deployed on the mobile body and is used only in scenes where insufficient performance is evaluated.
In the same field of endeavor, Lu discloses:
wherein the patch model is a new control model (see at least [0090] “the modification data 157 includes digital data describing a modification for a vehicle control system of at least one of one or more parties involved in a collision") (*Examiner interprets a modification to a model, described here as control system, as being a type of new model)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the autonomous vehicle control modeling field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Friedrichs to generate a new control model, as taught by Lu to modify an autonomous driving system based on collision data and prevent further collisions [0042].
In the same field of endeavor, Kandemir discloses:
that coexists separately from the control model deployed on the mobile body and is used only in scenes where insufficient performance is evaluated. (see at least [0067] “Based on the conformity assessment, the system may decide whether to use a regular control module of the lane keeping support system or to switch to a fallback control system to control e.g. the wheels 42 of the vehicle. For example, if the predictor reports middle-level uncertainty, a safe fallback functionality may be triggered, such as a lane keeping support algorithm that is less comfortable but highly interpretable and therefore safer to use.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the [1] autonomous vehicle control modeling field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Friedrichs to use two control models which coexist separately on the mobile body, and use the patch model used only in scenes where insufficient performance is evaluated, as taught by Kandemir to determine whether to use a standard to fallback model based on determining whether performance is acceptable under current conditions [0067].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hüger (US 20200241543) which discloses a system for updating a control model for a vehicle, which may generate a new control model based on updated data, determine whether a new control model is operating poorly, and switch back to the old model.
Clawson (US 20240208489) which discloses a system for validating a control model of a vehicle- the control model being validated based on the matching of trajectories generated by a prediction and the actual trajectory traveled by the vehicle to validate the generation model.
Kim (US 20220258752) which discloses a system which determines whether a current autonomous vehicle control model is performing sufficiently, and if not performing a re-training of the model and/or updating the model using an update which the examiner considers to be a patch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights