DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed on October 4, 2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1-13 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 6, line 5, “a precondition for executing a control strategy while achieving a goat” is not clear.
Claim 7, line 4, “calculating a precondition” and “acquiring environment information” are not clear as to each metes and bounds.
Claim 8, line 4, From claim 1, line 4, “predetermined scenario” is not clear as to the metes and bounds of each.
Claim 9, lines 3-4, “calculating a precondition” and “acquiring environment information” are not clear as to each metes and bounds.
Claim 10, line 4, “calculating a precondition” is not clear as to each metes and bounds.
Claim 11, lines 4-5, 9, “calculating a precondition” and “outputting safety rule information” are not clear as to each metes and bounds.
Claim 12, line 4, “calculating a precondition” and “acquiring environment information” are not clear as to each metes and bounds.
Claim 13, lines 4, 9, “calculating a precondition” and “acquiring environment information” are not clear as to each metes and bounds
The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101.
6. 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 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method/medium/system for detecting stops by an entity on a pre-planned trip Step 2A — Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 6-13 as a whole recite a system/method/medium of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claims 1 and 6-13, in short, recite representing a scenario and tracking subscinarios including a control strategy and safety, acquiring environment information for achieving a navigation goal, a precondition associated with the subscinarios, that may include an autonomous vehicle.
The recitation of a generic language, e.g. device, processor and computer does not take the claim out of the system/method/medium of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-5 the recitation of calculating the precondition, does not take the claim out of the system/method/medium of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
Claims 1-13 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of providing recommendations for an aerial vehicle. The device, processor and computer from claims 1 and 6-13 are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited terms amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 are also directed to same grouping of organizing human activity. The additional elements from these claims are additional elements that do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In short, the claims read, in broad scope and content, upon receiving an input of scenario information having a control strategy with a goal having subscenarios. This is done by a human being ascertaining the physical components around him/her and determining the physical aspects of scenarios and subscenarios, e.g. speed, direction of routes to avoid a collision (strategy) with an obstacle, in order to satisfy a safety condition.
7. Pertinent references are noted on the attached PTO-892.
8. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDS’s) submitted October 4, 2024 and October 21, 2025 have been reviewed. Note the attached IDS’s.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY whose telephone number is
571-272-6789. The examiner can generally be reached on Monday thru Friday from about 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr, can be reached on 571-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
571-272-6789