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 Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated January 12, 2026. In Response, submitted April 13, 2026, claims 1, 9, 11, and 16 were amended, and claims 8 and 10 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 9-12 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 9-10 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. As amended, independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Rather, claim 1 recites a specific technological process for evaluating disengagement events in autonomous vehicle operation using pre-disengagement sensor data, digital simulation, outcome-based categorization, and category-based filtering to generate a performance metric that is then used to modify an operational design domain ("ODD") for the vehicles. Even if the claim were viewed as reciting an abstract concept at some level, the claim integrates any such concept into a practical application that improves autonomous vehicle operation and deployment. … Amended claim 1 now requires, among other things, ‘performing, by the computing system, digital simulations for the plurality of disengagements using sensor data captured prior to the plurality of disengagements to determine simulated outcomes,’ ‘categorizing . . . the plurality of disengagements into a plurality of categories based on the simulated outcomes,’ and determining the performance metric by ‘filtering out the disengagements categorized in the no adverse outcome category.’ These limitations are directed to specific computer-implemented processing of autonomous-vehicle sensor data to generate simulated outcomes for events that did not actually occur because autonomous operation was disengaged. Those operations are not the type of observation, evaluation, or judgment that can practically be performed in the human mind. The claimed process requires computational use of vehicle sensor data to reconstruct and simulate counterfactual vehicle behavior and resulting outcomes, followed by categorization and filtering of disengagement events based on those simulated outcomes. That is a concrete technological operation performed on machine-generated data using a computing system, not a mental process. Nor is the claim directed to organizing human activity. The claim is directed to the technical evaluation of autonomous-vehicle performance and to machine-based modification of an ODD based on the resulting performance metric. Accordingly, amended claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “‘performing… simulations for the plurality of disengagements using sensor data captured prior to the plurality of disengagements to determine simulated outcomes,’ ‘categorizing . . . the plurality of disengagements into a plurality of categories based on the simulated outcomes,’ and determining the performance metric by ‘filtering out the disengagements categorized in the no adverse outcome category’ are recitations of the abstract “mental processes” of the claimed invention. The presence of additional elements such as the computing system and digital simulations do not preclude the limitations for reciting an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One. Similarly, “processing of autonomous-vehicle sensor data to generate simulated outcomes for events that did not actually occur because autonomous operation was disengaged” merely summarizes the recited abstract idea, specifically noting that “autonomous-vehicle sensor data” here and “sensor data” in the claim language merely serves to describe the type of data that is processed rather than to positively recite the autonomous vehicles, or the sensors used outside the scope of the claims.
Examiner additionally notes, the “computational use of vehicle sensor data to reconstruct and simulate counterfactual vehicle behavior and resulting outcomes, followed by categorization and filtering of disengagement events based on those simulated outcomes” and “evaluation of autonomous-vehicle performance [data] and … modification of an ODD based on the resulting performance metric” describe the abstract mental processes, specifically evaluations, and even judgements, of sensor data provided to the system. Rather than evidence of there being no abstract idea recited, the “operation[s] performed on machine-generated data” are the mental process abstract ideas. As noted above, the presence of additional elements alongside the recited abstract idea does not preclude the analysis of the claim to find that they recite an abstract idea.
On Pages 11-12 of the Response, Applicant argues “The Specification identifies a concrete technological problem in the autonomous-vehicle context: disengagement data can be misleading because some human safety-driver interventions do not reflect an actual unsafe condition and thus distort the assessment of vehicle performance. As a result, raw disengagement counts can improperly constrain the ODD of an autonomous vehicle.
Amended claim 1 recites a specific technological solution to that problem. Rather than treating all disengagements the same, the claimed computing system uses sensor data captured prior to each disengagement to perform digital simulations and determine simulated outcomes. The system then categorizes the disengagements based on those simulated outcomes and determines the relevant performance metric by filtering out disengagements in a specified category, namely the ‘no adverse outcome’ category. The resulting performance metric is then used to identify road segments satisfying the required criteria and to modify the ODD of the vehicle to include those road segments. Thus, the claim does not merely collect information and display or report a result. It recites a specific sequence of data-processing steps that improves how autonomous-vehicle systems evaluate safety-related disengagement data and determine whether additional road segments can be included within an ODD. That is a concrete application in the field of autonomous-vehicle technology, tied to the operation and deployment of those vehicles. The claimed process therefore effects a technological improvement by generating a more reliable performance metric for autonomous-vehicle operation and by using that improved metric to control ODD modification. The claim is accordingly integrated into a practical application and is patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. Withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of Claim 1, and the claims depending therefrom, is respectfully requested. Independent claims 11 and 16 have been amended similarly to claim 1.”
Examiner notes, Similar to the claims in Trading Tech, it appears Applicant is arguing an improvement of abstract processes related to the potential issues of processing “disengagement data [which] can be misleading because some human safety-driver interventions do not reflect an actual unsafe condition and thus distort the assessment of vehicle performance” resulting in “improperly constrain[ing] the ODD of an autonomous vehicle”; but does not argue any technical improvements (e.g., to the autonomous vehicle, digital simulation technology, or sensors). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(Il). The present invention accomplishes these improvements through alleged improvement to abstract ideas such as “us[ing] sensor data captured prior to each disengagement to perform … simulations and determine simulated outcomes … categoriz[ing] the disengagements based on those simulated outcomes and determin[ing] the relevant performance metric by filtering out disengagements in a specified category, namely the ‘no adverse outcome’ category … us[ing the resulting performance metric] to identify road segments satisfying the required criteria and … modif[ing] the ODD of the vehicle to include those road segments”. Similar to Trading Tech, where the courts ruled that the invention simply provided better information to the system to facilitate an outcome, these “specific sequence[s] of data-processing steps” are the abstract idea that is allegedly improved which provide better abstract data (i.e. “generating a more reliable performance metric for autonomous-vehicle operation”) into the system to facilitate “control [of] ODD modification”. That is, it is the abstract data processing that allegedly improved, and an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to the technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(Il).
Examiner also notes, “evaluat[ing] safety-related disengagement data and determin[ing] whether additional road segments can be included within an ODD” is a succinct summarization of the abstract mental processes (such as evaluating) that is performed.
Examiner finally notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the additional elements of the computer system and digital simulations are used merely as tools to perform the abstract ideas recited in the claim, and therefore when analyzed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination these elements amount to merely “apply it”. Specifically, the computer system is used as a tool to perform each abstract idea as discussed below, and the digital simulation is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “for the plurality of disengagements using sensor data captured prior to the plurality of disengagements to determine simulated outcome”. Therefore these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s remarks on Page 12 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in light of the amended claims.
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 1-7, 9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 and 9 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 11-15 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 substantially recite receiving vehicle operation data comprising a plurality of driving events that occurred during operation of one or more vehicles over a plurality of road segments;
associating each of the plurality of driving events with one of the plurality of road segments in which the driving event occurred, wherein the plurality of driving events comprise a plurality of disengagements of autonomous operation;
performing simulations for the plurality of disengagements using sensor data captured prior to the plurality of disengagements to determine simulated outcome;
categorizing the plurality of disengagements into a plurality of categories based on the simulated outcome, wherein the plurality of categories includes a no adverse outcome category;
determining a performance metric for each of the plurality of road segments based on the categorized disengagements associated with the road segment, wherein determining the performance metric comprises filtering out the disengagements categorized in the no adverse outcome category;
identifying a subset of the plurality of road segments with performance metrics exceeding a threshold; and
modifying an operational design domain (ODD) of the one or more vehicles, wherein the modifying comprises automatically expanding the ODD of the one or more vehicles to include the identified subset of the plurality of road segments.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “mental processes” (such as evaluation) of monitoring and analyzing surroundings and navigation in managing safety parameters (See PG Publication Para. 3-4). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 16 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a computing system (claims 1, 16), (ii) at least one processor (claims 11, 16), (iii) a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations (claim 11), (iv) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions (claim 16), and (v) digital simulations (claims 1, 11, 16).
The additional elements of (i) a computing system, (ii) at least one processor, (iii) a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations, (iv) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions, (v) digital simulations are recited at a high level of generality (see [0103] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the computing system, [0105] discussing the at least one processor, [0106] discussing the remote devices, [0062] discussing memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions, and [0057] discussing the digital simulations) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 6 and 7 showing all the additional elements (i) a computing system, (ii) at least one processor, (iii) a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations, and (iv) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 11, and 16 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 5-7 and 9 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 5-7 and 9 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 2, 12, and 17 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, substantially reciting the additional abstract idea of: identifying a second subset of the plurality of road segments with performance metrics below the threshold; and
training based on data collected from traveling the second subset of road segments.
Claims 2, 12, and 17 also recites the additional element of training the one or more vehicles, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0067] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing training the one or more vehicles) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., autonomous driving vehicles) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of training the one or more vehicles does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 12, and 17 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One
Dependent Claims 3, 13, and 18 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, substantially reciting in response to a ride request, identifying an autonomous vehicle (AV)-executable route within the ODD; and
dispatching to service the ride request based on the AV-executable route within the ODD.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) of managing transportation requests. (See PG Publication Para. 14). Therefore, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claims 3, 13, and 18 also recites the additional element of an AV, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0087] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the AV) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., autonomous driving vehicles) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of training the one or more vehicles does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3, 13, and 18 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 4, 14, 15, 19, and 20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 3, 13, and 18 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 4, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are also ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0163185 to Bin-Nun et al (hereafter Bin-Nun). Bin-Nun discloses receiving and analyzing operation data from a plurality of AVs to determine performance metrics associated with driving events and road segments and modifying ODDs.
The next closest prior art is non-patent literature “Driverless Cars and the ’90-90 Rule’” by Mui (hereafter Mui). Mui discloses receiving and analyzing operation data from a plurality of AVs to expand the ODDs of the vehicles.
The next closest prior art is non-patent literature “Safer Roads with Automated Vehicles?” by CPB (hereafter CPB). CPB discloses receiving and analyzing operation data of disengagements and the likely outcomes if a disengagement had not occurred.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 10,789,835 to Kislovskiy et al (hereafter Kislovskiy). Kislovskiy discloses using sensor data to simulate outcomes and categorize the outcomes.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Bin-Nun in view of Mui and further in view of CPB and even further in view of Kislovskiy does not explicitly disclose “determining, by the computing system, a performance metric for each of the plurality of road segments based on the categorized disengagements associated with the road segment, wherein determining the performance metric comprises filtering out the disengagements categorized in the no adverse outcome category” (emphasis added) determining performance metrics within a road segment while filtering out the disengagements categorized in the no adverse outcome category. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights