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).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/956,247 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the present application recites: A method for planning a safe trajectory for an autonomous vehicle with a vehicle control system, comprising: determining a route for the autonomous vehicle from a current location to a finishing location, based on a first set of vehicle control parameters; periodically reading a second set of vehicle control parameters; determining a driving passage along the route that guarantees both a minimum time to reach the finishing location and driving safety, based on a second set of vehicle control parameters; periodically reading a third set of vehicle control parameters; determining, for the autonomous vehicle, a local trajectory relative to the driving passage, based on a third set of vehicle control parameters; and transmitting the local trajectory to the vehicle control system.
Claim 1 of application 18/956,247 recites : A method for planning a safe trajectory for an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: receiving both a route for the autonomous vehicle from a current location to a finishing location, and a driving passage along the route; periodically verifying a set of vehicle control parameters as the autonomous vehicle navigates through the route, wherein a subset of the vehicle control parameters are verified less periodically than a remainder of the vehicle control parameters; determining a local trajectory relative to the driving passage based on the set of vehicle control parameters; and transmitting the local trajectory to a vehicle control system of the autonomous vehicle.
Though the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the prior art or application 18/956,247 recites periodically verifying a set of vehicle control parameters while the application recites the equivalent of reading a first set, a second set, and a third set of vehicle control parameters for the autonomous vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the systems to verifying the sets of vehicle control parameters for helping the autonomous vehicle to navigate its route.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1:
A method for planning a safe trajectory for an autonomous vehicle with a vehicle control system, comprising:
determining a route for the autonomous vehicle from a current location to a finishing location, based on a first set of vehicle control parameters;
periodically reading a second set of vehicle control parameters; determining a driving passage along the route that guarantees both a minimum time to reach the finishing location and driving safety, based on a second set of vehicle control parameters;
periodically reading a third set of vehicle control parameters;
determining, for the autonomous vehicle, a local trajectory relative to the driving passage, based on a third set of vehicle control parameters; and
transmitting the local trajectory to the vehicle control system.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for planning a safe trajectory… (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 13 is directed to a system for planning a safe trajectory… (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 20 is directed to a method for planning a safe trajectory… (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for planning a safe trajectory for an autonomous vehicle with a vehicle control system, comprising:
determining a route for the autonomous vehicle from a current location to a finishing location, based on a first set of vehicle control parameters [mental process/step];
periodically reading a second set of vehicle control parameters; determining a driving passage along the route that guarantees both a minimum time to reach the finishing location and driving safety, based on a second set of vehicle control parameters;
periodically reading a third set of vehicle control parameters;
determining, for the autonomous vehicle, a local trajectory relative to the driving passage, [mental process/step] based on a third set of vehicle control parameters; and
transmitting the local trajectory to the vehicle control system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for planning a safe trajectory for an autonomous vehicle with a vehicle control system, comprising:
determining a route for the autonomous vehicle from a current location to a finishing location, based on a first set of vehicle control parameters [mental process/step];
periodically reading a second set of vehicle control parameters; [mental process/step]
determining a driving passage along the route that guarantees both a minimum time to reach the finishing location and driving safety, based on a second set of vehicle control parameters; [mental process/step]
periodically reading a third set of vehicle control parameters; [mental process/step]
determining, for the autonomous vehicle, a local trajectory relative to the driving passage, [mental process/step] based on a third set of vehicle control parameters; and
transmitting the local trajectory to the vehicle control system. [insignificant post-solution activity result of the mental process]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “determining a route…,” “periodically reading a second set of vehicle control parameters,…, ” and “periodically reading a third set of vehicle control, parameters..” and “transmitting…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle control system) to perform the process. In particular, the determining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting results step on the is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting the local trajectory result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “vehicle control system” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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 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 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle control system to perform the determining… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “determining a route…,” periodically reading,…, ” and “transmitting…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) [2-6, 8-12, 14-17, 19] do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-17, 19] are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [1]. Claims 7, 13, 18 are patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) [1-6, 8-12, 14-17, 19] is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20190317512).
Regarding claims 1, 13, 20, Zhang et al. discloses a method and system for planning a safe trajectory for an autonomous vehicle (ADV) (See abstract), the method comprising: receiving both a route for the autonomous vehicle from a current location to a finishing location, and a driving passage along the route (See abstract: starting point to end point; driving scenario);
“In one embodiment, a system generates a plurality of trajectory candidates for an autonomous driving vehicle (ADV) from a starting point to an end point of a particular driving scenario. The system generates a reference trajectory corresponding to the driving scenario based on a current state of the ADV associated with the starting point and an end state of the ADV associated with the end point, where the reference trajectory is associated with an objective. For each of the trajectory candidates, the system compares the trajectory candidate with the reference trajectory to generate an objective cost representing a similarity between the trajectory candidate and the reference trajectory. The system selects one of the trajectory candidates as a target trajectory for driving the ADV based on objective costs of the trajectory candidates.”
periodically reading a set of vehicle control parameters as the autonomous vehicle navigates through the route, wherein a subset of the vehicle control parameters are verified less periodically than a remainder of the vehicle control parameters; (See paragraph 0022, the comparing step is considered as periodically reading, 0026) and wherein in paragraph 0028 showing components considered as vehicle control parameters are verified less periodically than a remainder of the vehicle control parameters); determining a local trajectory relative to the driving passage based on the set of vehicle control parameters (See paragraph 0028, 0029, 0034);
and transmitting the local trajectory to a vehicle control system of the autonomous vehicle (See paragraph 0030, 0033).(using wireless communication system for communicating to the autonomous vehicle)
“[0033] Referring back to FIG. 1, wireless communication system 112 is to allow communication between autonomous vehicle 101 and external systems, such as devices, sensors, other vehicles, etc. For example, wireless communication system 112 can wirelessly communicate with one or more devices directly or via a communication network, such as servers 103-104 over network 102. Wireless communication system 112 can use any cellular communication network or a wireless local area network (WLAN), e.g., using WiFi to communicate with another component or system. Wireless communication system 112 could communicate directly with a device (e.g., a mobile device of a passenger, a display device, a speaker within vehicle 101), for example, using an infrared link, Bluetooth, etc. User interface system 113 may be part of peripheral devices implemented within vehicle 101 including, for example, a keyword, a touch screen display device, a microphone, and a speaker, etc.”
Regarding claims 2-6, 12, 14-17, 19, Zhang et al. disclose wherein the first set of vehicle control parameters includes static autonomous vehicle control parameters (See paragraph 0037); and wherein the first set of vehicle control parameters comprises at least one of global positioning system (GPS) and mobile positioning (See paragraph 0030);
and wherein the second set of vehicle control parameters includes parameters defining circumstances around the autonomous vehicle (See paragraph 0036, 0051);
and wherein the second set of vehicle control parameters comprises at least one of light detection and ranging (LiDAR), radar, cameras, and infrared (IR) sensors (See paragraph 0036; sensor system 115; paragraph 0027, 0030); and
wherein the third set of vehicle control parameters includes parameters of autonomous vehicle environment (See paragraph 0031); and
wherein determining the local trajectory further comprises determining a path for overtaking another vehicle along the route (See paragraph 0045, 0046).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ganguli et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20190185010) discloses that the present teaching relates to method, system, medium, and implementation of route planning for an autonomous driving vehicle. A source location and a destination location are first obtained, where the destination location is where the autonomous driving vehicle is to drive to. One or more available routes between the source location and the destination location are identified. A self-aware capability model is instantiated with respect to the one or more available routes and is predictive of the operational capability of the autonomous driving vehicle with respect to each of the one or more available routes. Based on the self-aware capability model, a planned route to the destination location is then automatically selected for the autonomous driving vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661