DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application No. 18/932,073 filed on 10/30/2024. Claims 1-20 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 .
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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 (although not verbatim, but contains the same concept) recite the following:
A vehicle simulation system, comprising:
a processor configured to:
obtain perception data that includes data related to a first vehicle detected by sensors located on a second vehicle;
generate, using the perception data, a simulated perception data comprising a simulated vehicle corresponding to the first vehicle;
generate, based on the perception data, a simulation of the simulated vehicle with a driving behavior;
generate a plurality of trajectories from a current position of the simulated vehicle to a target position of the simulated vehicle;
select, from the plurality of trajectories, a trajectory on which the simulated vehicle is to be transitioned from the current position to the target position; and
send the trajectory and the simulated perception data of the simulated vehicle to an autonomous vehicle system.
The aforementioned bolded steps have been determined to be an abstract idea of a mental process that gathers information about a vehicle and performs steps to simulate various outcomes, selects an appropriate trajectory for the vehicle to use, and sends data about the trajectory to a vehicle which is similar to the concepts deemed by the courts to be abstract such as collecting, analyzing, and displaying available data in Electric Power Group.
Each of the steps can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to, in the broadest sense, simulate various outcomes given a known number of trajectories for a vehicle in a specific driving scenario. The driving scenario, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations, could be as simple as a stopping point for the vehicle given environmental conditions about the vehicle.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claims, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception in to a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claims do contain the additional elements of a processor and autonomous vehicle. However, each of the additional elements are claimed at such a high generality that they merely function as tools to apply the abstract idea, or more particularly, as insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For at least the reasons above, the additional elements, in combination with the abstract idea of itself, are not integrated into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(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 elements when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technological field. The additional limitation(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.
For at least the reasons above, the additional elements, in combination with the abstract idea of itself, are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements, considered both individually or 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.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and convention additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
While claims 1-20 are currently rejected under §101 as being directed to an abstract idea of itself, the subject matter of claims 1-20 would otherwise be allowable if the outstanding 101 rejection were overcome by way of persuasive argument or claim amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P INGRAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/Thomas Ingram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights