DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the originally filed application papers. Claims filed on 10/08/2024 are being examined. Claims 1-20 are being considered and further pending examination.
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 information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 10/08/2024, 01/02/2025, 04/22/2025, and 10/29/2025 is/are 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 § 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 1-8, 13, and 18 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim(s) 1, recites the broad recitation “receiving an input indicative of a rate control…”, and the claim also recites “generating a reference trajectory based on…the rate control” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, which are dependent on claims 9 and 15 respectively, they likewise recite “sending the rate control to the vehicle…” where the independent claims recite “receiving an input indicative of a rate control limiting a rate…” and are therefore rejected for the same reason.
Claims 2-8 are dependent on independent claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies thereof, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Applicant’s independent claim 1 is directed toward a system comprising one or more processors. Therefore, it can be seen that it/they fall(s) within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
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 following 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 and abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites :
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a vehicle, a request for guidance;
receiving an input indicative of a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration, steering, or braking;
generating a reference trajectory based on the request for guidance and the rate control;
determining a cost associated with the reference trajectory; and
sending the reference trajectory and the cost associated with the reference trajectory to the vehicle for use in generating a candidate trajectory.
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. Specifically, the step “generating” encompasses a user making an observation, evaluation, or judgement, where a person can, in their mind generate a trajectory based on a request and rate control information by determining a route or path for a vehicle considering limitations on rate control information. Further, the step “determining a cost associated with the reference trajectory” encompasses a user making an observation, evaluation, or judgement, where a person can, in their mind, determine a cost associated with the trajectory by simply assigning a cost value. 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 idea 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”):
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a vehicle, a request for guidance;
receiving an input indicative of a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration, steering, or braking;
generating a reference trajectory based on the request for guidance and the rate control;
determining a cost associated with the reference trajectory; and
sending the reference trajectory and the cost associated with the reference trajectory to the vehicle for use in generating a candidate trajectory.
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 limitation of “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising: ” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving, from a vehicle, a request for guidance; receiving an input indicative of a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration, steering, or braking;” the examiner submits that these limitations constitute extra solution activity. In particular “receiving, from a vehicle, a request for guidance; receiving an input indicative of a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration, steering, or braking;” is the pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Regarding the additional limitation of “sending the reference trajectory and the cost associated with the reference trajectory to the vehicle for use in generating a candidate trajectory” the examiner submits that this limitation constitute extra solution activity. In particular “ending the reference trajectory and the cost associated with the reference trajectory to the vehicle for use in generating a candidate trajectory” is the extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated.
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 as 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 “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising: ” amounts to no more than implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer. The additional elements of “receiving, from a vehicle, a request for guidance; receiving an input indicative of a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration, steering, or braking; ” amount to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. Further the additional element of “sending the reference trajectory and the cost associated with the reference trajectory to the vehicle for use in generating a candidate trajectory.” amounts to no more than selection of a particular data source or type. Therefore, as a whole the claim is directed to an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer with insignificant extra solution activities of data selection and data gathering.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) 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 as discussed below. Therefore, dependent claims 7-11 and 13-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 2-7 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the reference trajectory indicates a velocity and a direction for the vehicle to use to navigate an environment at a future time” which is merely further defining the abstract idea by incorporating a velocity and direction for a vehicle to travel.
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the reference trajectory further comprises at least one or a position, an acceleration, or a braking information” which is merely further defining the abstract idea by incorporating, for example, indications or speeding up or slowing down for a location or upcoming location.
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the reference trajectory is based at least in part on a capability of the vehicle” which is merely further defining the abstract idea by incorporating limitations of the vehicle, for example a trajectory along a road for a vehicle that cannot fly.
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the capability of the vehicle comprises at least one of an acceleration range, a velocity range, or a position range” which is merely further defining the abstract idea by incorporating limitations of acceleration, velocity, and/or position, for example a position range which restricts movement about a ground plane.
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the cost comprises at least one of a reference cost, a steering cost, an acceleration cost, or an obstacle cost associated with the reference trajectory” which is merely further defining the abstract idea of cost determination, for example a trajectory with a higher speed having a higher cost than a trajectory with a lower speed having a lower cost.
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitation “the operations further comprising sending the rate control to the vehicle for use in generating the candidate trajectory” which is merely addition of insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated.
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitations “storing the reference trajectory in association with a location on a map; and sending the reference trajectory to an additional vehicle based at least in part on a position of the additional vehicle relative to the location on the map” which are merely additional insignificant extra-solution activity where storing the reference trajectory is a generic computing device act-ing in its typical capacity to store data, and sending the reference trajectory to an additional vehicle is merely an additional step of data selection for a generic computing device acting in its typical capacity to transmit data.
Regarding claims 9-14, they recite a method with limitations substantially the same as claims 1-8 above, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 15-20, they recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable media with limitations substantially the same as claims 9-14 above, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
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(s) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staehlin (US 20200010083 A1) henceforth referred to as Staehlin in view of Mathews et al (US 9046372 B2 ) henceforth referred to as Mathews.
Regarding claim 9, Staehlin teaches A method comprising (para [0056] : “FIG. 5 shows a schematic representation of a vehicle 20 having a driver assistance system 10 and a server 30 (backend).”):
receiving, from a vehicle, a request for guidance (para [0049] line 6-8 : “If this has been established, the control unit 11 can instruct the communication device 12 to request an offboard trajectory from the server.”);
generating a reference trajectory based on the request for guidance and the input (para [0048] : “The communication device 12 is designed to receive data, in particular an offboard trajectory, from a server and to send said data.”, para [0049] line 8-19 : “The offboard trajectory sent by the server can subsequently be used by the control unit 11 of the driver assistance system 10 or respectively said offboard trajectory can replace the calculated trajectory. Consequently, the vehicle can furthermore drive partially or respectively fully autonomously, even if this would not be possible on the basis of the sensor data of the environment sensors. The server's offboard trajectory can comprise information regarding the driving angle, the orientation, radii to be driven, speeds to be driven at, relative position data, absolute position data, the route to be driven and the time required by the vehicle for this.”); and
sending the reference trajectory to the vehicle for use in generating a candidate trajectory(para [0048] : “The communication device 12 is designed to receive data, in particular an offboard trajectory, from a server and to send said data.”, para [0049] line 8-19 : “The offboard trajectory sent by the server can subsequently be used by the control unit 11 of the driver assistance system 10 or respectively said offboard trajectory can replace the calculated trajectory. Consequently, the vehicle can furthermore drive partially or respectively fully autonomously, even if this would not be possible on the basis of the sensor data of the environment sensors. The server's offboard trajectory can comprise information regarding the driving angle, the orientation, radii to be driven, speeds to be driven at, relative position data, absolute position data, the route to be driven and the time required by the vehicle for this.”). However, Staehlin fails to explicitly teach receiving an input indicative of a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration, steering, or braking;
However, in the same field of endeavor (trajectory planning for vehicles), Mathews teaches receiving an input indicative of a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration, steering, or braking (col 3 line 35-65: “The method may further comprise: determining one or more further linear approximations of the dynamics of the vehicle; and, using the one or more further linear approximations, determining one or more further trajectories for the vehicle; wherein each of the one or more further trajectories is determined using a further linear approximation of vehicle dynamics; and the trajectory and the one or more further trajectories are for implementation by the vehicle in series; each of the one or more further linear approximations is constrained by one or more of the following: (i) a requirement that a magnitude of a velocity of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a threshold value for the velocity; (ii) requirements that: an acceleration applied to the vehicle at a point on the trajectory is relatively large when the acceleration acts in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the velocity of the vehicle; and an acceleration applied to the vehicle at a point on the trajectory is relatively small when the acceleration acts in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the velocity of the vehicle; (iii) a requirement that the vehicle may not travel in a given region; a centre point of the region is at a distance from a predetermined point on the vehicle substantially equal to a minimum turn radius of the vehicle, in a direction substantially perpendicular to a velocity of the vehicle; and a distance from the centre point of the region to a point on a perimeter of the region is greater than or substantially equal to the minimum turn radius of the vehicle; and (iv) requirements that an acceleration of the vehicle during the trajectory is less than a threshold value for the acceleration, and the threshold value for the acceleration is dependent on an infinity norm of a velocity of the vehicle.”, As Staehlin teaches receiving a request for guidance and information from a vehicle and Mathews teaches the use of rate limiting information for the generation of trajectories the combination of Staehlin and Mathews teaches receiving an input indicative a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration, steering, or braking).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Staehlin, Levinson, Zhang, and Zaum with the method of Mathews “to provide that the determined trajectory is able to be followed by a vehicle (e.g. a wheeled land vehicle) that has a curvature limit” (Mathews col 8 line 26-29).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Staehlin and Mathews teaches The system of claim 9, further Staehlin teaches wherein the reference trajectory indicates a velocity and a direction for the vehicle to use to navigate an environment at a future time (para [0014] : “According to another embodiment of the invention, the offboard trajectory received from the server has information regarding the driving angle of the vehicle, the orientation of the vehicle, relative position data of the vehicle, absolute position data of the vehicle, the route to be driven, radii to be driven by the vehicle, speeds to be driven at or the time required for the route to be driven.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Staehlin and Mathews teaches The system of claim 9, further Mathews teaches wherein the reference trajectory is based at least in part on a capability of the vehicle, the capability comprising at least one of an acceleration range, a velocity range, or a position range col 3 line 35-65: “The method may further comprise: determining one or more further linear approximations of the dynamics of the vehicle; and, using the one or more further linear approximations, determining one or more further trajectories for the vehicle; wherein each of the one or more further trajectories is determined using a further linear approximation of vehicle dynamics; and the trajectory and the one or more further trajectories are for implementation by the vehicle in series; each of the one or more further linear approximations is constrained by one or more of the following: (i) a requirement that a magnitude of a velocity of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a threshold value for the velocity; (ii) requirements that: an acceleration applied to the vehicle at a point on the trajectory is relatively large when the acceleration acts in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the velocity of the vehicle; and an acceleration applied to the vehicle at a point on the trajectory is relatively small when the acceleration acts in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the velocity of the vehicle; (iii) a requirement that the vehicle may not travel in a given region; a centre point of the region is at a distance from a predetermined point on the vehicle substantially equal to a minimum turn radius of the vehicle, in a direction substantially perpendicular to a velocity of the vehicle; and a distance from the centre point of the region to a point on a perimeter of the region is greater than or substantially equal to the minimum turn radius of the vehicle; and (iv) requirements that an acceleration of the vehicle during the trajectory is less than a threshold value for the acceleration, and the threshold value for the acceleration is dependent on an infinity norm of a velocity of the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Staehlin and Mathews teaches The system of claim 9, further comprising determining a cost associated with the reference trajectory, wherein the cost comprises at least one of a reference cost, a steering cost, an acceleration cost, or an obstacle cost associated with the reference trajectory. ( col 6 line 23-27 : “.times..function. ##EQU00010## where the value function is given by g(x,u)=.parallel.[I0](x(N)-x.sub.P).parallel. In other embodiments this may also include cost term associated with traversing the trajectory, such as time or distance.”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Staehlin and Mathews teaches The system of claim 9, further Staehlin teaches further comprising sending the rate control to the vehicle for use in generating the candidate trajectory (para [0049] line 8-19 : “The offboard trajectory sent by the server can subsequently be used by the control unit 11 of the driver assistance system 10 or respectively said offboard trajectory can replace the calculated trajectory. Consequently, the vehicle can furthermore drive partially or respectively fully autonomously, even if this would not be possible on the basis of the sensor data of the environment sensors. The server's offboard trajectory can comprise information regarding the driving angle, the orientation, radii to be driven, speeds to be driven at, relative position data, absolute position data, the route to be driven and the time required by the vehicle for this.”, where any rate control is contained within a generated trajectory).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Staehlin and Mathews teaches The system of claim 9, further Staehlin teaches further comprising:
storing the reference trajectory in association with a location on a map (para [0052] : “Likewise, an offboard trajectory can be stored in these digital maps.”); and
sending the reference trajectory to an additional vehicle based at least in part on a position of the additional vehicle relative to the location on the map (para [0056] : “The server 30, in turn, can send or respectively make available these calculated trajectories of the driver assistance system 10 to other road users as offboard trajectories.”).
30 Claims 15-20 recite one or more non-transitory computer readable media with limitations substantially the same as claims 9-14 above, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-8 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, and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Prokhorov (US 20160358475 A1) teaches a system relating to the transfer of data from an autonomous vehicle to a remote operation computing system while the autonomous vehicle is operating in a remote operational mode are described. A driving environment of the autonomous vehicle can be sensed using a sensor system to acquire driving environment data. The sensor system includes a plurality of different types of sensors. A driving environment complexity can be determined. The availability of a communication channel between the autonomous vehicle and the remote operation computing system can be determined. A subset of the plurality of different types of sensors can be selected based on the determined driving environment complexity and/or the determined communication channel availability and/or its quality. Driving environment data acquired by the selected subset of the plurality of different types of sensors can be sent to the remote operation computing system.
Matsumoto et al (US 20200276984 A1) teaches a system including a server which includes: a candidate trajectory generation part for generating a candidate traveling trajectory of a target vehicle; a trajectory simulator for executing a trajectory simulation on the candidate traveling trajectory generated by the candidate trajectory generation part; a trajectory evaluation part for determining a traveling trajectory based on a result of the trajectory simulation; a vehicle coordination part for transmitting information of the traveling trajectory determined by the trajectory evaluation part to an onboard device; an infrastructure coordination part for obtaining sensing information from an infrastructure sensor; an ambient environment generation part for generating information indicating an ambient environment of the traveling trajectory, based on the sensing information obtained by the infrastructure coordination part; and a resetting determination part for determining whether to reset the traveling trajectory.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. 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.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668