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 § 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 2-3, 13-14, and 20 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.
Claims 2-3, 13-14, and 20 recite the limitation "the ego agent" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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. In particular the Claims are directed to mathematical models (neural networks, probability distributions, displacement error computations) to predict trajectories. 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) transforms data, generates trajectory predictions, trains a motion prediction model, generates results from a routing function model, and trains the routing function model. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional steps (mathematical calculations) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts. 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) only the additional limitation of "circuitry". 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: Gao et. al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0150350) and Shi et. al. ("Motion transformer with global intention localization and local movement refinement”) appear to be the closest prior art. Gao discloses a system, comprising: circuitry that: acquires input data including road map images and historical trajectory information of a set of agents in the road map images (¶31) transforms the input data into a vectorized representation; (¶12) generates a first candidate trajectory prediction for the set of agents by application of a motion prediction neural network on the vectorized representation; (¶38) .
Shi likewise discloses the neural network for trajectory prediction, however the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious generates a second candidate trajectory prediction for the set of agents by application of a rule-based prediction model on the acquired input data; generates ranking results for the first candidate trajectory prediction and the second candidate trajectory prediction based on a routing function network; and trains the routing function network based on the ranking results.
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
Prosecution Insights