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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 17 of copending Application No. US 20210139048 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of the current application and copending application recites determining driving solutions for an autonomous vehicle based on predicted trajectories for an agent vehicle, determining alternate scenarios, determining alternate driving solutions, revising the driving solution, and operating the autonomous vehicle based on the revised driving solution.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 17 recites:
“A non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium on which computer-readable instructions of a program are stored, the instructions, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform a method comprising:
determining a driving solution for an autonomous vehicle based on a first predicted trajectory for an agent vehicle in an environment of the autonomous vehicle;
determining an alternate scenario based on a second predicted trajectory for the agent vehicle;
determining an alternate driving solution for the autonomous vehicle based on the alternate scenario and a risk factor on the driving solution for the alternate scenario;
revising the driving solution up to where the alternate driving solution diverges from the driving solution; and
operating the autonomous vehicle based on the revised driving solution”.
The limitations of determining a driving solution, determining an alternate scenario, and determining an alternate driving solution, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a computing device, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the computing device determining in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of determining driving trajectories and creating driving scenarios in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of revising the driving solution, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a computing device, nothing in the claim precludes the revising from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a computing device language, the claim encompasses the user thinking and changing driving trajectories or driving speed in his mind. Thus, these limitations are also mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a computing device to perform determining, revising, and operating. The computing device in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of determining, revising, and operating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, operating the autonomous vehicle could include displaying navigation instructions on the in-vehicle display device, which is insignificant extra solution activity in the form of displaying data. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more computing devices, an autonomous vehicle, and an agent vehicle, to perform determining, revising, and operating amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a system, which amount to generic computer components. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 17.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of the vehicle based on the revised driving solution. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobilarov (US 10671076 B1) in view of Imai (US 20190278280 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobilarov discloses a method comprising (Col. 1 Line 66 – Col. 2 Line 34);
determining, by one or more computing devices, a driving solution for an autonomous vehicle based on a first predicted trajectory for an agent vehicle in an environment of the autonomous vehicle (Col. 2 Line 35 – Col. 2 Line 63, Col. 5 Line 27 – Col. 5 Line 59, Col. 30 Line 19 – Col. 30 Line 34, Col. 32 Line 35 – Col. 32 Line 47, Col. 33 Line 61 – Col. 34 Line 8, Fig. 7; “One or more possible predicted trajectories of the third-party object can be provided to a planner system of the autonomous vehicle to be incorporated into planning a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle”);
determining, by one or more computing devices, an alternate scenario based on a second predicted trajectory for the agent vehicle (Col. 30 Line 11 – Col. 31 Line 23, Fig. 7; “the prediction module 402 can determine the predictive trajectories 712, 716, and 720 based at least in part on the symbols 728 that are present in the environment 702 and that are relevant to the vehicle 710”);
determining, by the one or more computing devices, an alternate driving solution for the autonomous vehicle based on the alternate scenario and a risk factor on the driving solution for the alternate scenario (Col. 11 Line 25 – Col. 11 Line 60, Col. 26 Line 26 – Col. 26 Line 54, Col. 32 Line 35 – Col. 32 Line 47, Col. 33 Line 61 – Col. 34 Line 8; “can adjust a route and/or trajectory of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., to avoid an accident) or can perform an action (e.g., alerting emergency services such as the police) in response to determining behavior is out of the ordinary or in response to detecting a collision”).
Kobilarov does not specifically state revising, by the one or more computing devices, the driving solution up to where the alternate driving solution diverges from the driving solution; and operating, by the one or more computing devices, the autonomous vehicle based on the revised driving solution.
However, Imai teaches revising, by the one or more computing devices, the driving solution up to where the alternate driving solution diverges from the driving solution (Paragraphs 0057-0063; “the vehicle control device 1 changes the branching point DP11 defined by the map to a branching point DP12 directed to the start position of the travelable area RA1”);
and operating, by the one or more computing devices, the autonomous vehicle based on the revised driving solution (Paragraph 0061; “The vehicle control device 1 generates the travel trajectory P12 along the virtual route R14 and controls the own vehicle C1 so as to follow the vehicle C2”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kobilarov with revising the driving solution up to the diverging point and operating the autonomous vehicle based on the revised driving solution of Imai with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a vehicle’s trajectory can branch off in a route, and one of these branches may include merging into another lane of traffic. To prevent cutting off the vehicle in the other lane, the merging point can be shifted earlier for the autonomous vehicle to drive behind the other vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Kobilarov with Imai as this achieves less traffic disturbance and avoiding collisions. As stated in Imai, “by changing a branching point based on road information according to the surroundings of the own vehicle, it is possible to smoothly and safely travel without disturbing surrounding traffic flow of the own vehicle” (Paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 3, Kobilarov discloses determining the driving solution includes selecting one or more external constraints that are most likely to occur along a portion of a route (Col. 33 Line 61 – Col. 34 Line 8, Claim 1; “select, as a selected predictive trajectory, the predictive trajectory based at least in part on the outcome probability”).
Regarding claim 4, Kobilarov discloses determining the alternate scenario includes selecting one or more external constraints based on whether the one or more external constraints satisfy a minimum threshold likelihood of occurring (Col. 11 Line 25 – Col. 11 Line 60; “a probability of an accident (e.g., a collision) exceeding a threshold probability”);
Regarding claim 5, Kobilarov discloses determining the alternate scenario includes selecting one or more external constraints based on whether the one or more external constraints satisfy a minimum threshold level of risk to the autonomous vehicle along a portion of a route (Col. 11 Line 25 – Col. 11 Line 60; “a probability of an accident (e.g., a collision) exceeding a threshold probability”).
Regarding claim 6, Kobilarov discloses determining, by the one or more computing devices, the risk factor (Col. 11 Line 25 – Col. 11 Line 60; “an event can be a problem with the computer system(s) 102. For instance, a sensor associated with the computer system(s) 102 can fail or a component of the autonomous vehicle 122 can malfunction (e.g., tire pops, windshield shatters, etc.). Or, an event can be associated with a lack of communication from the computer system(s) 102 and/or of responsiveness of the computer system(s) 102”).
Regarding claim 7, Kobilarov discloses determining the risk factor is based on whether a level of risk to the autonomous vehicle associated with the alternate scenario exceeds a maximum threshold level of risk (Col. 11 Line 25 – Col. 11 Line 60; “In some examples, an event can be an object that is within a threshold distance of the autonomous vehicle 122, an object that is predicted to be within a threshold distance of the autonomous vehicle 122, or a probability of an accident (e.g., a collision) exceeding a threshold probability”).
Regarding claim 8, Kobilarov discloses revising the driving solution includes adjusting a speed profile associated with a potential switch to the alternate driving solution (Col. 29 Line 16 – Col. 30 Line 5; “if the pedestrian 610 decides to cross the crosswalk 606, the autonomous vehicle 604 can approach the crosswalk 606, slow or stop in the crosswait region 616, wait for the pedestrian 610 to traverse the crosswalk region 608, and when the crosswalk region 608 is clear, can accelerate away from the crosswalk 606”).
Regarding claim 9, Kobilarov discloses a system comprising one or more computing devices configured to (Col. 34 Line 9 – Col. 34 Line 29, Figs. 1 and 10; “The environment 1000 depicts one or more computer systems 1002 that comprise a storage 1004, one or more processor(s) 1006, a memory 1008, and an operating system 1010”).
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 11, Kobilarov discloses the one or more computing devices are further configured to (Col. 34 Line 9 – Col. 34 Line 29, Figs. 1 and 10; “The environment 1000 depicts one or more computer systems 1002 that comprise a storage 1004, one or more processor(s) 1006, a memory 1008, and an operating system 1010”);
determine the driving solution based on one or more external constraints that are most likely to occur along a portion of a route (Col. 33 Line 61 – Col. 34 Line 8, Claim 1; “select, as a selected predictive trajectory, the predictive trajectory based at least in part on the outcome probability”).
Regarding claim 12, Kobilarov discloses the one or more computing devices are further configured to (Col. 34 Line 9 – Col. 34 Line 29, Figs. 1 and 10; “The environment 1000 depicts one or more computer systems 1002 that comprise a storage 1004, one or more processor(s) 1006, a memory 1008, and an operating system 1010”);
determine the alternate scenario based on one or more external constraints that have a minimum threshold likelihood of occurring and a minimum threshold level of risk to the autonomous vehicle along a portion of a route (Col. 11 Line 25 – Col. 11 Line 60; “a probability of an accident (e.g., a collision) exceeding a threshold probability”).
Regarding claims 13-15, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 6-8. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 16, Kobilarov discloses the autonomous vehicle (Abstract, Col. 1 Line 66 – Col. 2 Line 9; “Techniques for generating trajectories for autonomous vehicles”).
Regarding claim 17, Kobilarov discloses a non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium on which computer-readable instructions of a program are stored, the instructions, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform a method comprising (Col. 1 Line 66 – Col. 2 Line 34).
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claims 19-20, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 3 and 7. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobilarov and Imai, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Sorin (US 20190217857 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kobilarov discloses a driving solution for an autonomous vehicle.
Kobilarov does not specifically state determining the driving solution includes selecting one or more external constraints that allow a longest distance traveled by the autonomous vehicle along a portion of a route.
However, Sorin teaches determining the driving solution includes selecting one or more external constraints that allow a longest distance traveled by the autonomous vehicle along a portion of a route (0003-0004, 0038-0039; “identify a path in the resulting planning graph that provides a longest route of travel of the vehicle (e.g., in time or distance) with a relatively low potential of a collision with such dynamic objects in the environment”; External constraints is mapped to autonomous vehicle paths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kobilarov with determining the driving solution includes selecting external constraints that allow a longest distance traveled by the autonomous vehicle of Sorin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when a vehicle wants to avoid a collision with another object, it may have to select a longer trajectory to travel on. One would have been motivated to combine Kobilarov with Sorin as this achieves reducing the possibility of a collision. As stated in Sorin, “In the case in which the longest route is desired, finding the shortest path in the planning graph 500 is not as high a priority as selecting a path with the least probability of collision” (Paragraph 0132).
Regarding claim 10, Kobilarov discloses the one or more computing devices are further configured to (Col. 34 Line 9 – Col. 34 Line 29, Figs. 1 and 10; “The environment 1000 depicts one or more computer systems 1002 that comprise a storage 1004, one or more processor(s) 1006, a memory 1008, and an operating system 1010”).
Kobilarov does not specifically state determine the driving solution based on one or more external constraints that allow a longest distance traveled by the autonomous vehicle along a portion of a route.
However, Sorin teaches determine the driving solution based on one or more external constraints that allow a longest distance traveled by the autonomous vehicle along a portion of a route (Paragraph 0003-0004, 0038-0039; “identify a path in the resulting planning graph that provides a longest route of travel of the vehicle (e.g., in time or distance) with a relatively low potential of a collision with such dynamic objects in the environment”; External constraints is mapped to autonomous vehicle paths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kobilarov with determining the driving solution based on external constraints that allow a longest distance traveled by the autonomous vehicle of Sorin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when a vehicle wants to avoid a collision with another object, it may have to select a longer trajectory to travel on. One would have been motivated to combine Kobilarov with Sorin as this achieves reducing the possibility of a collision. As stated in Sorin, “In the case in which the longest route is desired, finding the shortest path in the planning graph 500 is not as high a priority as selecting a path with the least probability of collision” (Paragraph 0132).
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 2. Please see the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669