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 .
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 is directed toward a computer readable storage medium.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-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 15 is directed toward a computer readable storage medium. The claim does not recite, and the specification does not define, that the computer readable storage medium is limited to non-transitory embodiments. A claim encompassing both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, such as applicant’s claimed computer readable medium, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”).
The claim may be amended to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter because the specification supports a claim drawn to at least one non-transitory embodiment.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
As to claim 5, the term “integrand” is not a specific function which makes the equation indefinite, because without a specific function, the equation cannot be used to determine the interpolation point data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (US 2020/0033871 A1).
As to claims 1/14/15, Kato discloses a method/system/medium of controlling a vehicle, the method comprising: providing waypoint data for a series of waypoints to a path controller (Fig. 5, 8, 11-12, para. 0074) ; using the path controller to determine interpolation point data for a series of interpolation points defining a target path for the vehicle by interpolating between the waypoints (para. 0007-0009, 0073-0074); and controlling the vehicle such that the vehicle follows the target path (para. 0053), wherein: (a) the waypoint data includes position data and at least one of heading data (para. 0052), curvature data (para. 0074), and/or inflection data, or (b) the waypoint data includes the position data and the method includes using the path controller to determine, using the waypoint data, the at least one of the heading data, the curvature data, and/or the inflection data, and wherein the curvature data represents the heading data differentiated with respect to distance travelled and the inflection data represents the curvature data differentiated with respect to the distance travelled (para. 0076).
As to claim 2, Kato further discloses wherein the waypoint data includes position data, the heading data, the curvature data, and the inflection data (para. 0052, 0074, 0079-0081).
As to claim 3, Kato further discloses wherein the interpolation point data includes interpolation position data and at least one of interpolation heading data, interpolation curvature data, and/or interpolation inflection data (para. 0052, 0074-0081).
As to claim 4, Kato further discloses wherein the interpolation point data includes interpolation position data, interpolation heading data, interpolation curvature data, and interpolation inflection data (para. 0052, 0074-0081).
As to claim 5, Kato further discloses wherein the path controller determines the interpolation point data using an equation of the form (para. 0076, equation 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
74
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
300
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Kato further discloses wherein the path controller determines the interpolation point data using a matrix inversion technique (para. 0078).
As to claim 9, Kato further discloses wherein the path controller determines the interpolation point data using matrices of the general form (para. 0078)
PNG
media_image3.png
210
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Hiroshi et al. (JP 2011-145797 A, IDS).
As to claim 6, Kato does not explicitly disclose the equation of claim 6, but Hiroshi teaches the equation of claim 6 (equations 1-9). Therefore, given the teaching of Hiroshi, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of present application to modify the method of Kato by incorporating the feature of equation of the form in claim 6, to determine interpolation point data.
As to claim 7, the use of 6-degree polynomial is just design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights