DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendment and Argument filed on 04/13/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending for 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 04/13/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to independent claims 1, 13, and 18 now positively recite receiving a rate control, therefore the previous the rejections of claims 1-8, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 see Remarks, pages 8-14, regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant references MPEP 2106.06 regarding determination that eligibility of the claim is self-evident. Examiner maintains that the eligibility is not self-evident as the analysis regarding 101 eligibility below discusses.
Further, applicant argues claims are not directed to an abstract idea where applicant argues that a human mind cannot generate a reference trajectory based on the request for guidance and the rate control and determine a cost associated with the reference trajectory as claim 1 recites. Applicant argues these limitations go beyond the capability of a human mind, however, examiner maintains this as an abstract idea where a human mind can generate a trajectory by determining which path a vehicle should take in response to gathered data such as rate control and a request. This generation can be made given a rate control of acceleration where a human mind can determine that given a rate control of acceleration the trajectory cannot pass a certain area in time to avoid a collision, and thus must take another path. Further determining a cost can be done in a human mind by determining that a trajectory has a certain distance, time, risk, or other quality associated with the determined path, for example determining a trajectory passing nearby a pedestrian has a higher risk of collision with a person and a trajectory to avoid go nearby a pedestrian will have a greater distance. Further arguments regarding improvements to the technology and integration into practical application are not convincing as the determined abstract ideas can be performed in the human mind while the other claimed limitations fall into the category of extra solution activity carried out by a generic computing device as discussed in detail in the rejection below.
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 comprising a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration or steering;
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 to control the vehicle to traverse an environment based at least in part on the 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 comprising a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration or steering;
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 to control the vehicle to traverse an environment based at least in part on the 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 comprising a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration or steering;” the examiner submits that these limitations constitute extra solution activity. In particular “receiving, from a vehicle, a request for guidance; receiving an input comprising a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration or steering;” 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 with the intended use language of “to control the vehicle to traverse an environment based at least in part on the candidate trajectory”.
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 comprising a rate control limiting a rate of at least one of acceleration or steering; ” 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 to control the vehicle to traverse an environment based at least in part on the candidate trajectory.” amounts to no more than selection of a particular data source or type along with intended use language. 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 acting 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 15-18, they recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable media with limitations substantially the same as claims 9-12 above, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 21, which is dependent on claim 15, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the reference trajectory comprises one or more waypoints to guide the vehicle to navigate the environment” which is merely further defining the abstract idea of trajectory generation with the addition of waypoints which can be done by a person, in their mind, simply by determining a location in which the trajectory must pass.
Regarding claim 22, which is dependent on claim 15, it merely adds the limitation “wherein generating the reference trajectory comprises generating the reference trajectory by a computing device based at least in part on at least one or movements or capabilities of the vehicle in the environment, and determining the cost associated with the reference trajectory comprises determining the cost by the computing device” which merely further defines the abstract idea of generating a trajectory by requiring consideration of constraints or capabilities such as determining a trajectory not incorporating flight for a vehicle which can be done in the human mind. Further, the claim recites executing of the abstract idea on a generic computing device, recited at a high level of generality, acting in its typical capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-18 and 21-22 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
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights