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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the IDS filed 9/27/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “unreasonable” in claims 3 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unreasonable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “other-responsibility” and “self-responsibility” are inadequately defined as a result.
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 1 is 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 1 is directed to a method of safely controlling a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of 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 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A processing method executed by a processor for performing a processing related to a driving of a host moving object, the processing method comprising:
a performance achievement prediction that predicts a future action of an other road user in an external environment of the host moving object as a prediction for achieving a target performance of the host moving object;
a driving plan that plans the driving of the host moving object according to the performance achievement prediction;
a safety assurance prediction that predicts, independently of the performance achievement prediction, the future action of the other road user in the external environment as a prediction for assuring a reasonably foreseeable safety of the host moving object; and
a driving monitoring that monitors the driving of the host moving object according to the safety assurance prediction.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers an activity of the human mind. For example, “predicts a future action…” in the context of the claim comprises an analysis of data. “plans the driving…” “predicts, independently…” and “monitors…” in the context of the claim likewise comprise mere data observation and analysis.
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, there are no additional limitations.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 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. In the present case, there are no additional limitations. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 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.
Dependent claims 2-14 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. Claim 2-6 provide additional detail regarding the operation of the performance prediction. Claim 7 merely adds an output of the resulting prediction data, considered extra-solution activity. Claims 8-12 and 14 provide additional detail regarding the operation of the safety prediction, and claim 13 again adds an outputting of the resulting data.
Claims 15, 16 and 17 respectively a system, processor, and computer program for performing the method of claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Examiner notes that control of the vehicle based on the driving plan is taught in paragraph [0022], [0040] and throughout the specification. Incorporation of explicit control of the vehicle based on the driving plan into the independent claims would be sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 USC §101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hendy et al. (US 20220363247 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hendy teaches: A processing method executed by a processor for performing a processing related to a driving of a host moving object, the processing method comprising:
a performance achievement prediction that predicts a future action of an other road user in an external environment of the host moving object as a prediction for achieving a target performance of the host moving object; (See Hendy Figs 1 and 5, [0026]-[0032] for vehicle with perception component 522 for detection of external objects, prediction of object trajectories and possible collisions. See [0079] and [0088] for factors such as passenger comfort (an example of performance target) used to determine driving factors)
a driving plan that plans the driving of the host moving object according to the performance achievement prediction; (See Fig. 5 and [0057], [0065] and elsewhere for planning component 524 which determines a path for the vehicle to follow)
a safety assurance prediction that predicts, independently of the performance achievement prediction, the future action of the other road user in the external environment as a prediction for assuring a reasonably foreseeable safety of the host moving object; and (See Fig. 5 and [0058]-[0062] for safety system 534, separate from vehicle computing device 504, which receives sensor data used to predict possible collisions)
a driving monitoring that monitors the driving of the host moving object according to the safety assurance prediction. (See [0058] where safety system 534 provides redundancy, error checking, and/or validation of determinations or commands determined by vehicle computing device 504)
Regarding claim 2, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 1, wherein,
in the performance achievement prediction, the future action of the other road user is predicted as a prediction for setting a performance achievement range that achieves the target performance of the host moving object. (See Hendy [0079] for determination of minimum allowable distance, which the examiner considers comparable to a performance achievement range)
Regarding claim 4, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 1, wherein,
in the performance achievement prediction, the future action of the other road user is predicted as a prediction based on a statistical model obtained by modeling a positive risk balance. (Paragraph [0054] of the present application defines a “positive risk balance” as based on a risk-benefit evaluation in a traffic environment. See Hendy Fig. 5 and [0070]-[0073] for model component 530 for calculation of collision probabilities based on environment data)
Regarding claim 5, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 4, wherein,
in the performance achievement prediction, the future action of the other road user is predicted based on the statistical model corresponding to perception information acquired at a timing when a visibility of the other road user is secured by a perception function of a driving system, which is mounted on the host moving object. (See Hendy Fig. 5 and [0070]-[0073] for model component 530 for calculation of collision probabilities based on environment data, including data from perception component 522)
Regarding claim 6, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 5, wherein,
in the performance achievement prediction, when the visibility of the other road user by the perception function of the driving system of the host moving object is limited at a past timing, the future action of the other road user is predicted based on a travel history of the other road user at the past timing, and
the travel history of the other road user at the past timing is acquired at a current timing through V2X communication. (See Hendy Fig. 5 and [0095]-[0096] for communication system 510 in communication with remote sensors, remote computing systems, or other vehicles for receiving sensor data.)
Regarding claim 7, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
outputting prediction information acquired by the performance achievement prediction. (Examiner asserts that outputting prediction information is inherent in using that information for path planning. See Hendy [0010] and throughout for model outputting data indicating probability of collision.)
Regarding claim 8, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 1, wherein,
in the safety assurance prediction, the future action of the other road user is predicted as a prediction for setting a boundary of a reasonably foreseeable safety range of the host moving object. (See Hendy [0079] for determination of a minimum allowable distance between vehicles which may be based on other factors)
Regarding claim 10, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 1, wherein,
in the safety assurance prediction, the future action of the other road user is predicted as a prediction based on a safety model obtained by modeling safety of an intended functionality. (See Hendy Fig. 5 and [0070]-[0073] for model component 530 for calculation of collision probabilities based on environment data, including data from perception component 522)
Regarding claim 11, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 10, wherein,
in the safety assurance prediction, the future action of the other road user is predicted based on the safety model corresponding to perception information acquired at a timing when a visibility of the other road user is secured by a perception function of a driving system, which is mounted on the host moving object. (See Hendy Fig. 5 and [0070]-[0073] for model component 530 for calculation of collision probabilities based on environment data, including data from perception component 522)
Regarding claim 13, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 1, further comprising
outputting prediction information acquired by the safety assurance prediction. (Examiner asserts that outputting prediction information is inherent in using that information. See Hendy [0010] and throughout for model outputting data indicating probability of collision.)
Regarding claim 14, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 1, wherein,
in the driving monitoring, a restriction or constraint on the driving of the host moving object is set according to the safety assurance prediction. (See Fig. 5 and [0087]-[0089] for actions taken in response to model outputs, including changes in speed or trajectory, which may be interpreted as restraining vehicle operation)
Regarding claims 15, 16 and 17, the claims are respectively directed to a system, processor, and computer program for performing the method of claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendy et al. (US 20220363247 A1) in view of Huai (US 20180136658 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 1, wherein,
Hendy does not explicitly teach: in the performance achievement prediction, the future action of the other road user is predicted as a prediction for avoiding a risk of an unreasonable other responsibility on the host moving object.
Examiner notes that the wording of this claim is very awkward. Based on paragraph [0054] of the present disclosure, Examiner is interpreting the claim to mean that the prediction and path planning of claim 1 are performed with a priority given to avoiding an accident which might be caused by another vehicle.
While Hendy does teach accident avoidance, it does not explicitly address matters of responsibility or liability. However, Huai teaches a method of setting self-driving vehicle priorities (See abstract) including specific behaviors regarding responsibility, liability, and damage in the case of an accident (See Huai [0002] and throughout).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Hendy to incorporate the behavioral preferences of Huai in order to create a preferred user experience for the vehicle owner.
Regarding claim 9, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 1, wherein,
Hendy does not explicitly teach: in the safety assurance prediction, the future action of the other road user is predicted as a prediction for avoiding a risk of unreasonable self-responsibility of the host moving object.
Examiner notes that the wording of this claim is very awkward. Based on paragraph [0079]-[0081] of the present disclosure, Examiner is interpreting the claim to mean that the safety predictions are performed with a priority given to avoiding responsibility or liability for a potential accident.
While Hendy does teach accident avoidance, it does not explicitly address matters of responsibility or liability. However, Huai teaches a method of setting self-driving vehicle priorities (See abstract) including specific behaviors regarding responsibility, liability, and damage in the case of an accident (See Huai [0002] and throughout).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Hendy to incorporate the behavioral preferences of Huai in order to create a preferred user experience for the vehicle owner.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendy et al. (US 20220363247 A1) in view of Nanri et al. (US 20220176952 A1) and Yan et al. (US 20190367020 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 5, wherein,
Hendy does not explicitly teach: in the performance achievement prediction, when the visibility of the other road user by the perception function of the driving system of the host moving object is limited at a past timing, the future action of the other road user is predicted based on a travel history of the other road user at the past timing, and
the travel history of the other road user at the past timing is acquired at a current timing through V2X communication.
Nanri teaches a method of predicting the behavior of another vehicle in the blind spot of the host vehicle (See Nanri [0002]-[0003], Fig. 2 and [0068]-[0072], Figs. 5-7) but does not explicitly teach using the driving history of the other vehicle as part of the prediction.
Yan teaches a method of predicting vehicle intention and behavior (see Yan [0005]) using a model trained on driver behavior data (see [0048]-[0049]) which can incorporate longer-term driver behavior patterns (See [0060]).
Finally, Hendy teaches V2X communications as an alternative source of sensor and training data (See Hendy Fig. 5, and [0095]-[0096] for communications connection 510 connected to networks 556, remote sensors, computing devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Hendy to incorporate the vehicle prediction methods of Nanri for predicting the behavior of other vehicles in the host vehicle’s blind spot, in order to improve the functioning of the safety system. It would further have been obvious to incorporate the driver behavior prediction of Yan in order to improve the accuracy of the predictions, and to use the V2X system of Hendy as a source of data regarding the driving history of another vehicle in cases where it was not otherwise available.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendy et al. (US 20220363247 A1) in view of Nanri et al. (US 20220176952 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hendy teaches: The processing method according to claim 11, wherein,
Hendy does not explicitly teach: in the safety assurance prediction, when the visibility of the other road user by the perception function of the driving system of the host moving object is limited at a current timing, the future action of the other road user is predicted under an assumption that the other road user moves within a safety range set in the safety model.
However, Nanri teaches a method of vehicle behavior prediction (See Nanri [0005]) which assumes that another vehicle which is in the host vehicle’s blind spot will move toward the host vehicle (See Nanri [0002]-[0003], Fig. 2 and [0068]-[0072], Figs. 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the safety prediction system of Hendy to predict that a vehicle in the blind spot of the host vehicle may move toward or into the path of the host vehicle, as taught in Nanri, in order to safely account for the inability to see the other vehicle in the present moment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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 Nolan can be reached on 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights