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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0172976, filed on 12/04/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024 has 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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 3 after referring to “an autonomous vehicle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 9 after referring to “an autonomous vehicle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-19 depend from claim 14 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Regarding claim 1, the claim incudes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method of assessing a risk of collision for traversing an intersection by an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, in response to the vehicle approaching the intersection, driving route information of the vehicle and information on a risk group, the driving route information including a location and a predicted arrival time of each of route points for the vehicle to travel along, and the information on the risk group including at least one of a location, a direction, or a velocity of surrounding obstacles;
setting, by the processor, a risk assessment zone within the intersection;
deriving, by the processor, an occupancy probability of the risk group;
determining, by the processor, a collision risk between the vehicle and the risk group by use of the risk assessment zone and the occupancy probability; and
determining, by the processor, based on the collision risk, whether the vehicle is allowed to traverse the intersection.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mental processes of setting, deriving, and determining. All of these steps can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws a zone within an intersection when a vehicle approaches the intersection, determines occupancy (within the intersection), determines that a collision will occur based on where an object is in the intersection when it is in the path of a vehicle, and the user determines whether or not the vehicle should proceed through the intersection.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method of assessing a risk of collision for traversing an intersection by an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, in response to the vehicle approaching the intersection, driving route information of the vehicle and information on a risk group, the driving route information including a location and a predicted arrival time of each of route points for the vehicle to travel along, and the information on the risk group including at least one of a location, a direction, or a velocity of surrounding obstacles;
setting, by the processor, a risk assessment zone within the intersection;
deriving, by the processor, an occupancy probability of the risk group;
determining, by the processor, a collision risk between the vehicle and the risk group by use of the risk assessment zone and the occupancy probability; and
determining, by the processor, based on the collision risk, whether the vehicle is allowed to traverse the intersection.
Whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional limitation (or combination of limitations) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
It is clear that Applicant’s claim does not comprise any of the above additional limitations that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
While the PEG further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the PEG also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes 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));
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element “obtaining” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor (computer), which is merely a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(s) as an ordered combination or
as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the
elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional element,
when considered as a whole, reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an
improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above -noted judicial
exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition,
implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that
is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing, or 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, such
that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do/does not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits
on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtain, select, and perform functions were considered to be pre- solution activity and post-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus these additional elements are re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional elements are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The additional element “obtaining”. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). See 2106.05(d)(II). iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 are found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 2 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the driving route information and the information on the risk group includes: obtaining the driving route information of the vehicle and the information on the risk group in response that the vehicle approaches the intersection within a threshold distance, or in response that an estimated time of the vehicle entering the intersection is less than or equal to a threshold time.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at a comparison of distance or time before information is obtained. This is a mental process of judgement.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 3 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 1, wherein the setting of the risk assessment zone includes:
setting the risk assessment zone within the intersection by use of the driving route information of the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mental process of setting. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws a zone within an intersection when a vehicle approaches the intersection based on driving information (acquired location and arrival time at route points of where the vehicle will travel to within the intersection).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 4 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 3, wherein the setting of the risk assessment zone includes: setting at least one node line within the intersection; subdividing a zone for each node line into subzones; and setting a risk assessment zone by each node line.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mental process of setting. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws a zone within an intersection, draws node lines, divides zones by drawing other lines, and marking a risk assessment zone by each node lines.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 5 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 4, wherein the setting of the risk assessment zone by each node line includes: determining a representative driving route point by each node line among route points for the vehicle to travel along within the intersection; determining, based on the representative driving route point, a collision risk assessment point on a corresponding node line; and setting, by each node line, a risk assessment zone of a predetermined size based on the collision risk assessment point.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mental process of setting. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws a route point by each node line among route points, determines a collision risk assessment point on a corresponding node line (by drawing/marking), and setting a risk assessment zone of a certain size based on the collision risk assessment point (by drawing/marking).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 6 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 5, wherein the representative driving route point is a route point with a closest distance to each node line among the route points for the vehicle to travel along within the intersection, and wherein the collision risk assessment point is determined by a contact point of a perpendicular line drawn from the representative driving route point, where the contact point meets with the corresponding node line.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mental process of setting. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws the representative driving route point is a route point with a closest distance to each node line among the route points for the vehicle to travel along within the intersection (by drawing/marking), and the collision risk assessment point is determined by a contact point of a perpendicular line drawn from the representative driving route point, where the contact point meets with the corresponding node line (by drawing/marking).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 4, wherein weights at the risk assessment zone by each node line have a Gaussian distribution.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mathematical concept and an abstract idea. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws a Gaussian distribution at each node line that have weights.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 8 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 4, wherein the deriving of the occupancy probability of the risk group includes: deriving an occupancy probability by each node line for each of the obstacles by use of the information on the risk group; and deriving a final occupancy probability of the risk group by each node line by summing derived occupancy probabilities by respective node lines for all the obstacles.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at a mathematical concept and an abstract idea. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person determines the occupancy probability by each line for each obstacle and adds all the occupancy probabilities for each obstacle together for a final occupancy probability.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 8, wherein the deriving of the occupancy probability by each node line for each of the obstacles including: deriving an initial occupancy probability for each of the obstacles; and deriving the occupancy probability by each node line for each of the obstacles at a predicted arrival time at a representative driving route point of the vehicle based on the initial occupancy probability by each of the obstacles.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at an abstract idea. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person determines the initial occupancy probability for each obstacle and determines the occupancy probability by each node line for each of the obstacles at a predicted arrival time at a representative driving route point of the vehicle based on the initial occupancy probability by each of the obstacles.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 8, wherein the determining of the collision risk includes: determining a risk by each node line based on the risk assessment zone by each node line and the final occupancy probability of the risk group by each node line.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at an abstract idea. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person determines determining a risk by each node line based on the risk assessment zone by each node line and the final occupancy probability of the risk group by each node line.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 10, wherein the determining of whether the vehicle is allowed to traverse the intersection includes: determining whether the intersection is clear for the vehicle to traverse based on the determined risk by each node line.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at an abstract idea. This step can be performed in the human mind. For example a person determines whether an intersection is clear. This is an observation and a potential judgement, which are mental processes.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 12 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The method of claim 11, wherein the determining of whether the vehicle is allowed to traverse the intersection comprises: determining that the intersection is clear for the vehicle to traverse in response that determined risks by all the node lines are below a threshold value.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at an abstract idea. This step can be performed in the human mind. For example a person determines whether an intersection is clear based on that the determined risks are below a threshold level (arbitrary number). This is an observation and a potential judgement, which are mental processes.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a program for performing the method of claim 1 is recorded.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a program for performing the method of claim 1 is recorded.
The additional element of “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” is insignificant extra solution activity of mere data storage/gathering, MPEP2106.05(g). It does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(s) as an ordered combination or
as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the
elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional element,
when considered as a whole, reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an
improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above -noted judicial
exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition,
implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that
is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing, or 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, such
that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do/does not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits
on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtain, select, and perform functions were considered to be pre- solution activity and post-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus these additional elements are re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional elements are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The additional element “recorded”. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering/recording). See 2106.05(d)(II). iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 are found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 14 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
The bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”:
An apparatus of assessing a risk of collision for traversing an intersection by an autonomous vehicle, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one processor to perform operations in response to an execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, and wherein the operations include:
obtaining, in response to the vehicle approaching the intersection, driving route information of the vehicle and information on a risk group, the driving route information including a location and a predicted arrival time of each of route points for the vehicle to travel along, and the information on the risk group including at least one of a location, a direction, or a velocity of surrounding obstacles;
setting a risk assessment zone within the intersection; deriving an occupancy probability of the risk group;
determining a collision risk between the vehicle and the risk group by use of the risk assessment zone and the occupancy probability; and
determining, based on the collision risk, whether the vehicle is allowed to traverse the intersection.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mental processes of setting, deriving, and determining. All of these steps can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws a zone within an intersection when a vehicle approaches the intersection, determines occupancy (within the intersection), determines that a collision will occur based on where an object is in the intersection when it is in the path of a vehicle, and the user determines whether or not the vehicle should proceed through the intersection.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus of assessing a risk of collision for traversing an intersection by an autonomous vehicle, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one processor to perform operations in response to an execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, and wherein the operations include:
obtaining, in response to the vehicle approaching the intersection, driving route information of the vehicle and information on a risk group, the driving route information including a location and a predicted arrival time of each of route points for the vehicle to travel along, and the information on the risk group including at least one of a location, a direction, or a velocity of surrounding obstacles;
setting a risk assessment zone within the intersection; deriving an occupancy probability of the risk group;
determining a collision risk between the vehicle and the risk group by use of the risk assessment zone and the occupancy probability; and
determining, based on the collision risk, whether the vehicle is allowed to traverse the intersection.
The additional element “obtaining” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a processor coupled with a memory and storing instructions (computer) , which is merely a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(s) as an ordered combination or
as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the
elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional element,
when considered as a whole, reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an
improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above -noted judicial
exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition,
implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that
is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing, or 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, such
that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do/does not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits
on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtain, select, and perform functions were considered to be pre- solution activity and post-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus these additional elements are re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional elements are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The additional element “obtaining”. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). See 2106.05(d)(II). iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 are found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the setting of the risk assessment zone includes:
setting the risk assessment zone within the intersection by use of the driving route information of the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mental process of setting. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws a zone within an intersection when a vehicle approaches the intersection based on driving information (acquired location and arrival time at route points of where the vehicle will travel to within the intersection).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 16 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the setting of the risk assessment zone includes: setting at least one node line within the intersection; subdividing a zone for each node line into subzones; and setting a risk assessment zone by each node line.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mental process of setting. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws a zone within an intersection, draws node lines, divides zones by drawing other lines, and marking a risk assessment zone by each node lines.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 17 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the setting of the risk assessment zone by each node line includes: determining a representative driving route point by each node line among route points for the vehicle to travel along within the intersection; determining, based on the representative driving route point, a collision risk assessment point on a corresponding node line; and setting, by each node line, a risk assessment zone of a predetermined size based on the collision risk assessment point.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at mental process of setting. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person draws a route point by each node line among route points, determines a collision risk assessment point on a corresponding node line (by drawing/marking), and setting a risk assessment zone of a certain size based on the collision risk assessment point (by drawing/marking).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the setting of the risk assessment zone by each node line includes: wherein the determining of the collision risk includes: determining a risk by each node line based on the risk assessment zone by each node line and the final occupancy probability of the risk group by each node line.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at an abstract idea. This step can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example a person determines determining a risk by each node line based on the risk assessment zone by each node line and the final occupancy probability of the risk group by each node line.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the determining of whether the vehicle is allowed to traverse the intersection includes: determining whether the intersection is clear for the vehicle to traverse based on the determined risk by each node line.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim is directed at an abstract idea. This step can be performed in the human mind. For example a person determines whether an intersection is clear. This is an observation and a potential judgement, which are mental processes.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the 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 determined 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 beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0084578 A1) hereinafter Sadeghi in view of Bush et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0410882 A1) hereinafter Bush in view of McGill et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0086859 A1) hereinafter McGill.
Regarding claim 1, Sadeghi discloses a computer-implemented method of assessing a risk of collision for traversing an intersection by an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, see Paragraph 0075 – discusses a trajectory evaluator receives trajectories] and information on a risk group [see Paragraph 0080 – discusses other vehicle state information is obtained from a sensor],
the driving route information including a location and a predicted arrival time of each of route points for the vehicle to travel along [see Paragraph 0075 - discusses that each trajectory for a vehicle includes a time interval (time steps), each trajectory has a starting position at time 0 and an ending position at time T, and see Figure 6 below - depicts the time locations (nodes) and the time steps (qT)], and
the information on the risk group including at least one of a location, a direction, or a velocity of surrounding obstacles [see Paragraph 0080 - discusses other vehicles state information is determined from sensors, the state information includes location and velocity];
setting, by the processor, a risk assessment zone within the intersection [see Paragraph 0077 - discusses that a vehicle occupancy grid is generated];
deriving, by the processor, an occupancy probability of the risk group [see Paragraph 0080 - discusses populating the cells of the vehicle occupancy grid with occupancy probability];
determining, by the processor, a collision risk between the vehicle and the risk group by use of the risk assessment zone and the occupancy probability [see Paragraphs 0090-0092 - discusses predicting the probability of collision for each future time of each trajectory based on the occupancy grid and the occupancy grid probability]
Bush discloses determining risk in response to the vehicle approaching the intersection, before it passes through an intersection [see Paragraph 0002].
Bush suggests that determining risk (before a vehicle reaches an intersection) ensures a vehicle can pass through an intersection without incident [see Paragraph 0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method of Sadeghi to be performed in response to a vehicle approaching an intersection as taught by Bush in order to ensure a vehicle can pass through an intersection without incident [Bush, see Paragraph 0002].
McGill discloses determining, by a processor, based on a collision risk, whether a vehicle is allowed to traverse an intersection [see Paragraph 0067 - discusses that the vehicle comes to a stop before entering the intersection if the risk (conflict probability) is greater than a threshold, or proceeds to travel through the intersection if the risk is below the threshold].
McGill suggests that nudging (stopping) before an intersection based on a determination reduces uncertainty in estimated occupancy segments before traversing through an intersection [see Paragraphs 0053 and 0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method of Sadeghi to determine whether a vehicle is allowed to traverse an intersection based on a collision risk as taught by McGill in order to reduce uncertainty in estimated occupancy segments of an intersection [McGill, see Paragraphs 0053 and 0067].
Regarding claim 2, Sadeghi, Bush, and McGill disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Bush further discloses obtaining the driving route information of the vehicle and the information on the risk group in response that the vehicle approaches the intersection within a threshold distance [see Paragraph 0025 - discusses that a sensor detects the intersection, it is known that sensors detect objects within a predetermined range (distance), therefore the intersection is determined to be approached within a threshold distance (range of a sensor)].
Regarding claim 3, Sadeghi, Bush, and McGill disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Sadeghi further discloses wherein the setting of the risk assessment zone includes: setting the risk assessment zone within the intersection by use of the driving route information of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0077 - discusses acquiring an occupancy grid for evaluation of a trajectory, see Figure 4 below - depicts each of the trajectories being input into the risk assessment module for generating of the vehicle occupancy grid].
Regarding claim 4, Sadeghi, Bush, and McGill disclose the invention with respect to claim 3. Sadeghi further discloses wherein the setting of the risk assessment zone includes:
setting at least one node line within the intersection [see Figure 5 below - depicts at least one node line (cells are made up lines)];
subdividing a zone for each node line into subzones [see Figure 5 below - depicts multiple cells (subzones) for a region (zone)]; and
setting a risk assessment zone by each node line [see Paragraph 0090 - discusses a probability of collision based on determining whether another vehicle occupies a cell; each cell (made up of node lines) is used for risk assessment].
Claims 14-16 are analogous to claims 1 and 3-4 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi in view of Bush in view of McGill.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi in view of Bush in view of McGill further in view of Fonseca et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0086859 A1) hereinafter Foncesa.
Regarding claim 7, Sadeghi, Bush, and McGill disclose the invention with respect to claim 4.
However, the combination of Sadeghi, Bush, and McGill fails to disclose wherein weights at the risk assessment zone by each node line have a Gaussian distribution.
Foncesa discloses wherein weights at a risk assessment zone by each node line have a Gaussian distribution [see Paragraphs0032 - discusses a Gaussian distribution for a cell].
Foncesa suggests that a Gaussian distribution is used to determine a safe driving area [see Paragraph 0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method of Sadeghi to include weights at a risk assessment zone by each node line have a Gaussian distribution as taught by Foncesa in order to determine a safe driving area [Foncesa, see Paragraph 0032].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665