DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method or an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES) The examiner has identified claim 1, which substantially includes all the limitations of claim 14 and claim 19, as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A method comprising:
receiving, at a computing system, a request for assistance from a vehicle operating in an environment, wherein the request includes sensor data depicting the environment as captured by a vehicle sensor and data representing a behavior prediction for an agent located in the environment as determined by the vehicle;
displaying, based on the sensor data, a representation of the environment of the vehicle showing the agent, wherein the representation conveys the behavior prediction for the agent;
receiving an input provided by an operator, the input modifying the behavior prediction for the agent; and
providing, by the computing system and to the vehicle, a response based on the input modifying the behavior prediction for the agent, wherein the vehicle is configured to determine a control strategy for subsequent navigation based on the response.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretations, this system is providing a response based on an input. If the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitations entails performance in the human mind, then it falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims are abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of receiving sensor data and receiving data representing a behavior prediction. The steps of receiving sensor data and receiving data representing a behavior prediction are recited at a high level of generality and do not comprise any of the above additional elements that individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the steps of receiving sensor data and receiving data representing a behavior prediction constitute mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. There are no additional elements that 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept-rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 and similarly other independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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 1-3, 5-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lockwood (US20190011910).
Claim 1.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
A method comprising: receiving, at a computing system, (Lockwood – [0052] teleoperations system 148) a request for assistance from a vehicle operating in an environment, (Lockwood – [0104] a request for guidance from the teleoperations system) wherein the request includes sensor data depicting the environment as captured by a vehicle sensor (Lockwood – [0057] In the example architecture 200 shown in FIG. 2, the example vehicle systems 202 include a plurality of sensors 204, for example, configured to sense movement of the vehicle 102 through the environment 100) and data representing a behavior prediction for an agent located in the environment as determined by the vehicle; (Lockwood – [0064] In some examples, the collision predictor system 220 may be configured to use the data representing the object type, the predicted object behavior)
displaying, based on the sensor data, a representation of the environment of the vehicle showing the agent, wherein the representation conveys the behavior prediction for the agent; (Lockwood – [See Figure 6; Dog 604; Figure 7; pedestrian 708)
receiving an input provided by an operator, the input modifying the behavior prediction for the agent; and (Lockwood – [0112] FIG. 9B shows an example UI 900B providing an example of the teleoperator 150 providing guidance to the vehicle 102. [0141] In some examples, the communication signals from the driverless vehicle may include a predicted trajectory of an object into a path of the driverless vehicle. In some such circumstances, the teleoperations signals may alter the predicted trajectory, so that the vehicle controller maneuvers the driverless vehicle past the object.)
providing, by the computing system and to the vehicle, a response based on the input modifying the behavior prediction for the agent, wherein the vehicle is configured to determine a control strategy for subsequent navigation based on the response. (Lockwood – [0141] In some such circumstances, the teleoperations signals may alter the predicted trajectory, so that the vehicle controller maneuvers the driverless vehicle past the object; [0144] At 1506, the example process 1500 may also include determining, via the teleoperator, a first level of guidance for providing the driverless vehicle based at least in part on the data associated with the first communication signals. For example, the first level of guidance may relate to whether the teleoperator provides instructions to the driverless vehicle, collaborates with the driverless vehicle, for example, trading information and/or proposed actions, or confirms information received from the driverless vehicle and/or actions proposed by the driverless vehicle.)
Claim 2.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein the agent corresponds to a given vehicle, a pedestrian, or a bicyclist. (Lockwood – [0062] pedestrian, a vehicle, a bicyclist, etc.)
Claim 3.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, wherein data representing the behavior prediction for the agent comprises: data representing a predicted trajectory for the agent, wherein the predicted trajectory corresponds to a path of travel for the agent predicted by the vehicle relative to a current position of the vehicle. (Lockwood – [See Figure 6; dog 604, Figure 7; pedestrian 708, and Figure 9; person 906])
Claim 5.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 3, wherein receiving the input comprises: receiving the input modifying the predicted trajectory for the agent to generate a modified trajectory for the agent; (Lockwood – [0141] In some such circumstances, the teleoperations signals may alter the predicted trajectory, so that the vehicle controller maneuvers the driverless vehicle past the object)
and wherein providing the response based on the input modifying the behavior prediction for the agent comprises: providing the response with an indication for the vehicle to use the modified trajectory for the agent when determining the control strategy for subsequent navigation. (Lockwood – [0144] At 1506, the example process 1500 may also include determining, via the teleoperator, a first level of guidance for providing the driverless vehicle based at least in part on the data associated with the first communication signals. For example, the first level of guidance may relate to whether the teleoperator provides instructions to the driverless vehicle, collaborates with the driverless vehicle, for example, trading information and/or proposed actions, or confirms information received from the driverless vehicle and/or actions proposed by the driverless vehicle.)
Claim 6.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 3, wherein displaying the representation of the environment of the vehicle showing the agent further comprises: augmenting the representation of the environment to further convey the predicted trajectory for the agent. (Lockwood – [0061] In some examples, the planner 214 may be configured to generate data representative of a trajectory of the vehicle 102, for example, using data representing a location of the vehicle 102 in the environment 100 and other data, such as local pose data, that may be included in the location data 212. In some examples, the planner 214 may also be configured to determine projected trajectories predicted to be executed by the vehicle 102.)
Claim 7.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on the request for assistance, determining the vehicle is stopped in the environment. (Lockwood – [0094] As the confidence level drops below a threshold minimum confidence level, the vehicle 102 may slow its speed or stop, and use its network interface 234 (FIG. 2) to send communication signals to the teleoperations system 148 providing sensor data and a request for guidance from the teleoperations system 148. In some examples, the request may be inferred and/or determined by the teleoperations system 148 based at least in part on, for example, the sensor data and or other information associated with the vehicle 102, such as its change in speed, confidence level, and/or other maneuvering that might be indicative of a need for guidance from the teleoperations systems 148)
Claim 14.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 15.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 14, wherein the computing system is positioned remote from the vehicle and wherein the vehicle sensor corresponds to a camera or a lidar unit. (Lockwood – [0032] a teleoperations receiver located remotely from the driverless vehicle; [0057] The sensors 204 may include, for example, one or more light detection and ranging sensors (LIDAR), one or more cameras (e.g., RGB-cameras, intensity (grey scale) cameras, infrared cameras)
Claim 16.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 14, wherein the data represents a first behavior prediction for a first agent located in the environment and a second behavior prediction for a second agent located in the environment, and wherein the representation conveys the first behavior prediction for the first agent and the second behavior prediction for the second agent. (Lockwood – [0068] In some examples, the planner 214 may use the object data to determine a predicted path of the object in the environment, for example, based on data representing the location of the object and may process that data to generate data representing a predicted object path. Data representing the type of object may be determined based on the data representing whether the object is moving, data representing the object's classification, and/or data representing object's type. A pedestrian not in motion, a vehicle in motion, and traffic sign, a lane marker, or a fire hydrant, none of which is in motion, are examples of object types with an associated motion data.)
Claim 17.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 16, wherein the input modifies one or both of the first behavior prediction and the second behavior prediction. (Lockwood - [0141] In some such circumstances, the teleoperations signals may alter the predicted trajectory, so that the vehicle controller maneuvers the driverless vehicle past the object)
Claim 18.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 14, wherein the agent corresponds to a given vehicle or a pedestrian. (Lockwood – [0062] pedestrian, a vehicle, a bicyclist, etc.)
Claim 19.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20.
Lockwood teaches the following limitations:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the data represents a predicted trajectory for the agent, and wherein the predicted trajectory corresponds to a path of travel for the agent predicted by the vehicle relative to a current position of the vehicle. (Lockwood – [See Figure 6; dog 604, Figure 7; pedestrian 708, and Figure 9; person 906])
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockwood (US20190011910) in view of Levinson (US9507346B1).
Claim 12.
Lockwood teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein receiving the request for assistance from the vehicle operating in the environment further comprises: receiving a first proposed trajectory and a second proposed trajectory for subsequent navigation as determined by the vehicle; and wherein displaying the representation of the environment comprises: displaying the first proposed trajectory as a first visual path on the representation of the environment and the second proposed trajectory as a second visual path on the representation of the environment.
However, Levinson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the request for assistance from the vehicle operating in the environment further comprises: receiving a first proposed trajectory and a second proposed trajectory for subsequent navigation as determined by the vehicle; and wherein displaying the representation of the environment comprises: displaying the first proposed trajectory as a first visual path on the representation of the environment and the second proposed trajectory as a second visual path on the representation of the environment. (Levinson – [Col. 18 lines 18-30] Teleoperator API 962 receives telemetry data 950 and inquiry data 952, which, in turn are processed in view of Route data 960 and message service configuration data 964. The resultant data is subsequently presented to a teleoperator 908 via teleoperator computing device 904 and/or a collaborative display (e.g., a dashboard display visible to a group of collaborating teleoperators 908). Teleoperator 908 reviews the candidate trajectory options that are presented on the display of teleoperator computing device 904, and selects a guided trajectory, which generates command data 982 and query response data 980, both of which are passed through teleoperator API 962 as query response data 954 and command data 956)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lockwood with Levinson in order to initiate modification of trajectories remotely to influence navigation of autonomous vehicles. (Levinson – [Col. 3 lines 35-42])
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4, 8-11, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 4, 8-11, and 13 are objected for their dependency on the rejected base claim, but would otherwise be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art Lockwood (US20190011910) discloses a method for autonomously operating a driverless vehicle along a path between a first geographic location and a destination may include receiving communication signals from the driverless vehicle wherein the communication signals may include sensor data from the driverless vehicle and data indicating occurrence of an event associated with the path. However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose providing the response with an indication for the vehicle to suppress the predicted trajectory for the agent when determining the control strategy for subsequent navigation; the data representing the behavior prediction for the agent located in the environment as determined by the vehicle comprises: first data representing a first behavior prediction for the agent and second data representing a second behavior prediction for the agent, wherein the first behavior prediction differs from the second behavior prediction; and displaying the first proposed trajectory as the first visual path on the representation of the environment and the second proposed trajectory as the second visual path on the representation of the environment comprises: displaying the first visual path and the second visual path using a color scale, wherein the color scale represents differences in confidence levels associated with the first visual path and the second visual path.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT FENG whose telephone number is (703)756-4715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/VINCENT FENG/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669