Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 11/01/2024 (claimed foreign priority date 05/03/2022):
Claims 1-17 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
1.1 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 simulator” in claim 7.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 1-17 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.
1.1.1 Claim 1 recites the limitation/feature “a/the closest scenario,” which is unclear to understand whether the claimed/specified “closest scenario,” which is, per specification, Para [0084-0085], at least as published, obtained from scenario library of known scenarios, or from constraint library of known scenarios, is considered as physically, distance wise, closest to the claimed/specified “sensed current scenario,” OR the claimed/specified “closest scenario,” which is, per specification, Para [0084-0085], at least as published, obtained from scenario library of known scenarios, or from constraint library of known scenarios, is considered closest to the claimed/specified “sensed current scenario” based on similarity, or subject(s), meaning wise to the claimed/specified “sensed current scenario,” since it’s obtained from libraries that typically store meaning, subject(s), or description of a scenario, without any details on distance to anything, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
The specification, in numerous paragraphs, ONLY presents information on distance details between sensed/detected scenario(s) and closest scenario(s) obtained from libraries, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, it will be interpreted that the claimed/specified “closest scenario” is considered as a closest one based on similarity, or subject(s), meaning wise to the claimed/specified “sensed current scenario,” since these known scenarios are stored and obtained from libraries that typically store meaning, objectiveness, description, type, other defined data of a scenario(s) that may use to figure out similarities with a later sensed/detected scenario(s), without any details on distance/distance threshold(s) to or from anything.
1.1.2 Claims 2-6 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
1.1.3 Claim limitation “a simulator,” in claim 7, has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear, as claimed, or as specified, or as presented in the figures, Dwg. 4, whether the claimed/specified “simulator” is a hardware/structure, or a firmware, or a software/program. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, it will be interpreted that the claimed/specified “simulator” to be and actual unit or similar hardware device, such as a CPU Control Processing Unit/Processor; thereby providing structure to the body of the claim.
1.1.4 Claim 7 recited the limitation/feature “a known scenario” twice, which is unclear whether the same “known scenario” is claimed in the claim, or different “known scenarios” are claimed in the claim, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, it will be interpreted that the same “known scenario” is claimed in claim 7.
1.1.5 Claims 8-13 and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 7, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 7-13 and 15-17 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
Claim 7 is directed to a computer-implemented method of determining (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 7 is within the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I 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 7 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 7 recites:
7. A computer-implemented method of determining a maneuvering constraint of an autonomous vehicle during a known scenario, the method comprising:
running a known scenario of the autonomous vehicle as a simulation in a simulator;
iteratively running the simulation by applying different dynamic parameters to the autonomous vehicle;
identifying a maximum dynamic parameter from the different dynamic parameters applied to the autonomous vehicle below which no infractions occur during the simulation and above which an infraction occurs during the simulation; and
storing, in a constraint database, the maximum dynamic parameter as a maneuvering constraint of the autonomous vehicle for the known scenario.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining;” “running [scenario/simulation];” “identifying;” “storing [data]” in the context of this claim encompass a person (driver/operator/user/human, etc.) looking at data collected (from sensors) and forming a simple judgement/decision output. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II 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 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”):
7. A computer-implemented method of determining a maneuvering constraint of an autonomous vehicle during a known scenario, the method comprising:
running a known scenario of the autonomous vehicle as a simulation in a simulator;
iteratively running the simulation by applying different dynamic parameters to the autonomous vehicle;
identifying a maximum dynamic parameter from the different dynamic parameters applied to the autonomous vehicle below which no infractions occur during the simulation and above which an infraction occurs during the simulation; and
storing, in a constraint database, the maximum dynamic parameter as a maneuvering constraint of the autonomous vehicle for the known scenario.
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 “computer-implemented method;” “simulator;” “constraint database,” the examiner submits that these limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgement/decision output in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the “determining;” “running [scenario/simulation];” “identifying;” “storing [data]” steps.
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 (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 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 7 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 element of using “computer-implemented method;” “simulator;” “constraint database” to perform the “determining;” “running [scenario/simulation];” “identifying;” “storing [data]” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of using “computer-implemented method;” “simulator;” “constraint database” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because 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 onboard computer, processor 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 8-13 and 15-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in dependent claims 8-13 and 15-17, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc. Therefore, dependent claims 8-13 and 15-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 7.
Therefore, claims 8-13 and 15-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
1.2 Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim is directed to a computer readable medium. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC. § 101 by adding/keeping the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 7, 9-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reschka (US11577741) in view of Goldberg (US20190129831).
As per claim 7, Reschka discloses through the invention (see entire document), a computer-implemented method of determining a maneuvering constraint of an autonomous vehicle during a scenario (c12, l5-26; c15, l10-36; c25, l24-56), the method comprising:
running the scenario of the autonomous vehicle as a simulation in a simulator (c16, l20-46; c19, l33-58);
iteratively running the simulation by applying different dynamic parameters to the autonomous vehicle (c9, l59 through c10, l46);
identifying a maximum dynamic parameter from the different dynamic parameters applied to the autonomous vehicle below which no infractions occur during the simulation and above which an infraction occurs during the simulation (c3, l62 through c4, l16; c9, l59 through c10, l46; c20, l35-44); and
storing, in a constraint database, the maximum dynamic parameter as a maneuvering constraint of the autonomous vehicle for the scenario (c13, l7-19; c16, l47-63; c24, l4 through c25, l15).
Reschka does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing a known scenario of the autonomous vehicle as a simulation; storing, in a constraint database, the maximum dynamic parameter as a maneuvering constraint of the autonomous vehicle for the known scenario.
However, Goldberg discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly fig. 1, Para [0020, 0031, 0060, 0076] – teaching an autonomous vehicle testing system that stores the motion trajectory in an accessible database such that the simulated object and its simulated movement can be accessed and reproduced in another simulated environment (e.g., during a later testing session, etc.); library database that includes state data and/or motion trajectories of a plurality of simulated objects (e.g., generated based on user input) from a plurality of previously run simulations; simulation system 106 that obtains data indicative of the third party simulated environments and/or testing scenarios 127 from the memory 124; the simulation system 106 that obtains data indicative of the third party simulated environments and/or testing scenarios 127 from another memory (e.g., a third party database that stores the third party simulated environments and/or testing scenarios 127; a library database that includes state data 128 and/or motion trajectories of a plurality of simulated objects (e.g., generated based on user input) from a plurality of simulations (e.g., previously run simulations)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Reschka by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Goldberg, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide a more realistic and repeatable testing scenario, while ultimately improving the autonomous vehicle computing system's response to objects proximate to the autonomous vehicle; to enable user control of a simulated object within a simulated environment that can enable the production of and testing of autonomous vehicle performance within scenarios that infrequently occur during real-world autonomous vehicle testing, including, for example, driving scenarios that include dangerous driving behavior or driving events or other undesirable scenarios (see entire Goldberg document, particularly Para [0020]).
As per claim 9, Reschka further discloses through the invention (see entire document), incrementing the dynamic parameters; and checking for infractions at each increment (c31, l47-60 – teaching scenario variations that vary the object speed at discrete increments; other parameters, e.g., acceleration, deceleration, direction, that can also be incrementally varied to derive additional scenario variations).
As per claim 10, Reschka further discloses through the invention (see entire document), continuing the incrementing until modulation of the dynamic parameters has been exhausted (c21, l1-19 – teaching maximum deceleration trajectory that may include decelerating at a rate of 15 or 20 feet per second per second until the autonomous vehicle 102 comes to a stop).
As per claim 11, Reschka further discloses through the invention (see entire document), incrementing that comprises incrementing at a predefined interval (c6, l18-43; c19, l58 through c20, l4 – teaching processing sensor data to determine a position and/or orientation (together a pose) of the autonomous vehicle 102 relative to a point and/or object in an environment; tracking of an object that represents (or be based on) a current or previous position, velocity, acceleration, orientation, and/or heading of the object over a period of time (e.g., 5 seconds; processing the input data to determine one or more predicted trajectories for an object., based on a current position of an object and a velocity of the object over a period of a few seconds).
As per claim 12, Reschka further discloses through the invention (see entire document), dynamic parameters selected from a list including velocity, acceleration, deceleration, and jerk (c29, l13-31).
As per claim 13, Reschka further discloses through the invention (see entire document), maneuvering constraint that comprises a travel envelope constructed in space-time, within which no infractions are predicted to occur (c3, l24-37; c9, l59 through c10, l46; c10, l47-67).
As per claim 15, Reschka further discloses through the invention (see entire document), decrementing the dynamic parameters; and checking for infractions at each decrement (c10, l31-46; c12, l26-34; c30, l18-41).
As per claim 16, Reschka further discloses through the invention (see entire document), continuing the decrementing until modulation of the dynamic parameters has been exhausted (c21, l1-19).
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the decrementing comprises decrementing at a predefined interval (c10, l31-46; c12, l26-34; c30, l18-41).
2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reschka and Goldberg, further in view of Aydore (US11537902).
As per claim 8, Reschka does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing retrieving a descriptor of the known scenario from a database, the descriptor being a multivariate distribution from a bottleneck of a variational autoencoder; and decoding the descriptor using a decoder from the variational autoencoder to generate the known scenario.
However, Aydore discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly c2, l64 through c3, l33 – teaching variational autoencoders (VAEs) as probabilistic graphical model that includes an encoder and a decoder; an advantage of VAEs over some other autoencoders as that VAEs may learn the distribution of data that provides a reconstruction probability rather than a reconstruction error as an anomaly score; decoder of the VAE that samples from the variational distribution of the code and transforms the sample into a reconstruction of the input.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that Aydore reference is an Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that both Applicant and Aydore teach on encoding/decoding data via autoencoder, variational autoencoder (VAE) to detect anomalies.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the Aydore reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Reschka by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Aydore, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to detect anomalous events from categorical data using autoencoders (see entire Aydore document, abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
2. Claims 2-6 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Nakhaei Sarvedani (US20210078603) – (see entire Nakhaei Sarvedani document, particularly abstract – teaching an information collection system that includes an on-vehicle device and a server, wherein the on-vehicle device includes a first transmission signal transmitting part configured to transmit a first transmission signal to the server when the vehicle event is detected, and an upload executing part configured to transmit the vehicle event data to the server when the upload demand is received; the server that includes a determining part configured to determine, based on the determination purposes information, when the first transmission is received, whether the information acquisition condition is met, an upload demanding part configured to transmit the upload demand to the on-vehicle device when it is determined that the information acquisition condition is met, and a vehicle event data receiving part configured to receive the vehicle event data transmitted from the on-vehicle device).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 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 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662