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 .
Drawings
The drawings (1-18) are objected to because of the following informalities: all drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction, in conformance with Patent Rule 1.84(l). In the Instant application the drawings contain grayscale, because grayscale images contain multiple colors (various shades of gray) the images are not in the required black and white format. (which contain only 2 colors, black and white)
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: all drawings must be made by Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or in Color in conformance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84. In the Instant application the drawings contain grayscale, because grayscale images contain multiple colors (various shades of gray) the images are not in the required black and white format. (which contain only 2 colors, black and white)
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is grammatically incorrect and recites “wherein the HPN employing” when it is believed applicant intended “where the HPN employs”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 without significantly more. Claims 1-20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) receiving data, estimating a future position of an object and penalizing self actions with a high risk of collision. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 1-20 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-20 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of a computing device having a processor. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the claims are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under §101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Toghi et. al. (Social coordination and altruism in autonomous driving) appears to be the closest prior art. Toghi discloses a deep reinforcement learning module training a plurality of agents via a value function network to optimize a social reward function in a mixed-autonomy traffic environment. Toghi however fails to disclose or render obvious a method for automatic autonomous vehicle navigation, the method comprising: importing, via a plurality of vehicle navigation sensors communicatively coupled to a processor, a plurality of observations of a mixed-autonomy environment at a predetermined time t into a Hybrid Predictive Network (HPN); synthesizing, via the HPN, a plurality of future hypotheses of the mixed-autonomy environment during at least one alternative time, t +1, based on the imported observations; estimating, via a Value Function Network (VFN) communicatively coupled to the HPN, state-action value functions based on the plurality of synthesized future hypothesis; and penalizing, via a safety prioritizer of the VFN, at least one estimated high-risk state-action, and masking the at least one estimated high-risk state-action when the at least one high-risk state-action is selected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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 Mehdizadeh can be reached at (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 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669