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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on December 13, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 14 are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 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 system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining a behavior profile corresponding to an object within an environment in which a fleet of vehicles operate [mental process/step];
determining an identifier that is unique to the object [mental process/step];
storing the behavior profile with the identifier; and
conveying the behavior profile to a vehicle of the fleet of vehicles.
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 a behavior profile …” and “determining an identifier …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person 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 system [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] comprising:
one or more processors [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component]; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component]:
determining a behavior profile corresponding to an object within an environment in which a fleet of vehicles operate [mental process/step];
determining an identifier that is unique to the object [mental process/step];
storing the behavior profile with the identifier [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component]; and
conveying the behavior profile to a vehicle of the fleet of vehicles [insignificant post-solution activity (presenting/dispatching results of the mental process) using generic computing module component].
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 “one or more processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media …”, “storing the behavior profile …” and “conveying the behavior profile …” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a computer system) to perform the process. In particular, the “system” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a computer system performing a generic computer function of executing a program stored in a non-transitory computer-readable media) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
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 (computer) system to execute program instructions amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “one or more processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media …”, “storing the behavior profile …” and “conveying the behavior profile …” 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 claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 6-10, independent claim 6 is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause a system to perform the identical operations of the system of independent claim 1, and similarly, dependent claims 7-10 of independent claim 6 are also performing identical operations corresponding to dependent claims 2-5 of independent claim 1, respectively, therefore claims 6-10 are also rejected under 35 USC § 101 for the same respective rationale as claims 1-5.
Dependent claims 11-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Therefore, dependent claims 11-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 14-18, independent claim 14 is a method performing the identical operations of the system of independent claim 1, and similarly, dependent claims 15-18 of independent claim 14 are also performing identical operations corresponding to dependent claims 2-5 of independent claim 1, respectively, therefore claims 14-18 are also rejected under 35 USC § 101 for the same respective rationale as claims 1-5.
Dependent claims 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Therefore, dependent claims 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 14.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9, 12-16 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12187288 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the above indicated claims of the instant application are anticipated by the respective claimed limitations in the above indicated claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12187288 B1. See the claim anticipation mapping below with all matching elements of the claim limitations appear in bold while non-matching elements of the claim limitations are not bolded.
Instant Application 18/980,365
Claims 1-20
U.S. Patent No. US 12187288 B1
Claims 1, 6-9, 12-16 and 18-19
Independent Claims:
1. A system comprising:
1. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause an autonomous vehicle system to perform operations comprising:
determining a behavior profile corresponding to an object within an environment in which a fleet of vehicles operate;
7. A method, comprising: determining a behavior profile corresponding to an instant object within an environment in which a fleet of vehicles operate based at least in part on sensor data associated with the environment;
determining an identifier that is unique to the object;
determining an identifier that is unique to the instant object based at least in part on the first sensor data;
storing the behavior profile with the identifier; and
storing the behavior profile and the identifier in a database, the database accessible by a second vehicle.
conveying the behavior profile to a vehicle of the fleet of vehicles.
7. A method, comprising:
…
conveying the behavior profile to at least one vehicle of the fleet of vehicles, wherein the behavior profile is accessible via the identifier.
6. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause a system to perform operations comprising:
15. A non transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
determining a behavior profile corresponding to an object within an environment in which a fleet of vehicles operate;
determining a behavior profile corresponding to an instant object within an environment in which a fleet of vehicles operate based at least in part on sensor data associated with the environment;
determining an identifier that is unique to the object;
determining an identifier that is unique to the instant object derived from the sensor data associated with the environment;
storing the behavior profile with the identifier; and
storing the behavior profile with the identifier; and
conveying the behavior profile to a vehicle of the fleet of vehicles.
conveying the behavior profile to at least one vehicle of the fleet of vehicles, wherein the behavior profile is accessible via the identifier.
14. A method comprising:
7. A method, comprising:
determining a behavior profile corresponding to an object within an environment in which a fleet of vehicles operate;
determining a behavior profile corresponding to an instant object within an environment in which a fleet of vehicles operate based at least in part on sensor data associated with the environment;
determining an identifier that is unique to the object;
determining an identifier that is unique to the instant object derived from the sensor data associated with the environment;
storing the behavior profile with the identifier; and
storing the behavior profile with the identifier; and
conveying the behavior profile to a vehicle of the fleet of vehicles.
conveying the behavior profile to at least one vehicle of the fleet of vehicles, wherein the behavior profile is accessible via the identifier.
Dependent Claims:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the identifier is determined based at least in part on third party data.
6. The system of claim 1, further comprising receiving second sensor data associated with the environment, the second sensor data indicative of a presence of a second object operating in the environment and including a second characteristic of the second object;
…determining a second identifier that is unique to the second object based at least in part on the second sensor data;
3. The system of claim 1, wherein determining the identifier is based at least in part on:
receiving, from a sensor device associated with the vehicle, sensor data, wherein the identifier is determined based at least in part on the sensor data.
1. A system comprising:
…
receiving first sensor data associated with an environment of a first vehicle, the first sensor data indicative of a presence of an instant object in proximity to the first vehicle and including a characteristic of the instant object;
…
determining an identifier that is unique to the instant object based at least in part on the first sensor data;
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the object associated with the behavior profile is at a location in the environment, and the operations further comprise: conveying the behavior profile to a subset of the fleet of vehicles within a predetermined distance of the location.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the behavior profile is associated with a location of the instant object and conveying the behavior profile to the fleet of vehicles comprising conveying the behavior profile to a subset of the fleet of vehicles within a predetermined distance of the location.
5. The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: determining a likelihood for the object to diverge from an expected behavior; determining that the likelihood meets or exceeds a threshold value; and conveying the behavior profile to the fleet of vehicles based at least in part on the likelihood meeting or exceeding the threshold value.
12. The method of claim 7, further comprising determining a likelihood for the instant object to diverge from an expected behavior, wherein conveying the behavior profile to the fleet is based at least in part on the likelihood for the instant object to diverge from the expected behavior meeting or exceeding a threshold value.
7. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, wherein the identifier is determined based at least in part on third party data.
6. The system of claim 1, further comprising receiving second sensor data associated with the environment, the second sensor data indicative of a presence of a second object operating in the environment and including a second characteristic of the second object;
…determining a second identifier that is unique to the second object based at least in part on the second sensor data;
8. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, wherein determining the identifier is based at least in part on: receiving, from a sensor device associated with the vehicle, sensor data, wherein the identifier is determined based at least in part on the sensor data.
15. A non transitory computer readable medium
……..
determining an identifier that is unique to the instant object derived from the sensor data associated with the environment;
9. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, wherein the object associated with the behavior profile is at a location in the environment, and the operations further comprise: conveying the behavior profile to a subset of the fleet of vehicles within a predetermined distance of the location.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the behavior profile is associated with a location of the instant object and conveying the behavior profile to the fleet of vehicles comprising conveying the behavior profile to a subset of the fleet of vehicles within a predetermined distance of the location.
10. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, the operations further comprising: determining a likelihood for the object to diverge from an expected behavior; determining that the likelihood meets or exceeds a threshold value; and conveying the behavior profile to the fleet of vehicles based at least in part on the likelihood meeting or exceeding the threshold value.
19. The non transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise determining a likelihood for the instant object to diverge from an expected behavior, wherein conveying the behavior profile to the fleet is based at least in part on the likelihood for the instant object to diverge from the expected behavior meeting or exceeding a threshold value.
11. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, wherein the behavior profile includes a confidence score, the confidence score indicative of a confidence of the behavior profile to predict behavior of the object, wherein the confidence score is based at least in part on a temporal proximity of the behavior profile to a present time and additional observations of the object.
14. The method of claim 7, wherein the behavior profile includes a confidence score, the confidence score indicative of a confidence of the behavior profile to predict behavior of the instant object, wherein the confidence score is based at least in part on a temporal proximity of the behavior profile to a present time and additional observations of the instant object.
12. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, the operations further comprising: accessing, based at least in part on the identifier, a database; selecting, from the database, the behavior profile for the object; and updating the behavior profile based at least in part on sensor data.
18. The non transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein determining the behavior profile comprises: accessing a database and selecting the behavior profile for the instant object based on the identifier; and updating the behavior profile based at least in part on the sensor data.
13. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, wherein the identifier comprises a hash value that includes a location of the object.
16. The non transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the identifier comprises a hash value that includes a characteristic of the instant object.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the identifier is determined based at least in part on third party data.
6. The system of claim 1, further comprising receiving second sensor data associated with the environment, the second sensor data indicative of a presence of a second object operating in the environment and including a second characteristic of the second object;
…determining a second identifier that is unique to the second object based at least in part on the second sensor data;
16. The method of claim 14, wherein determining the identifier is based at least in part on: receiving, from a sensor device associated with the vehicle, sensor data, wherein the identifier is determined based at least in part on the sensor data.
7. A method, comprising:
…
determining an identifier that is unique to the instant object derived from the sensor data associated with the environment;
17. The method of claim 14, wherein the object associated with the behavior profile is at a location in the environment, and the method further comprises: conveying the behavior profile to a subset of the fleet of vehicles within a predetermined distance of the location.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the behavior profile is associated with a location of the instant object and conveying the behavior profile to the fleet of vehicles comprising conveying the behavior profile to a subset of the fleet of vehicles within a predetermined distance of the location.
18. The method of claim 14, further comprising: determining a likelihood for the object to diverge from an expected behavior; determining that the likelihood meets or exceeds a threshold value; and conveying the behavior profile to the fleet of vehicles based at least in part on the likelihood meeting or exceeding the threshold value.
12. The method of claim 7, further comprising determining a likelihood for the instant object to diverge from an expected behavior, wherein conveying the behavior profile to the fleet is based at least in part on the likelihood for the instant object to diverge from the expected behavior meeting or exceeding a threshold value.
19. The method of claim 14, wherein the identifier comprises a hash value that includes a location of the object.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the identifier comprises a hash value that includes the location of the instant object.
20. The method of claim 14, further comprising: accessing, based at least in part on the identifier, a database; selecting, from the database, the behavior profile for the object; and updating the behavior profile based at least in part on sensor data.
13. The method of claim 7, wherein determining the behavior profile comprises: accessing a database and selecting the behavior profile for the instant object based on the identifier; and updating the behavior profile based at least in part on the sensor data.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to methods and systems for determining behavior profiles and associated unique identifiers of objects operating in a driving environment. The difference between the claims at issue is that in US 12187288 B1, the objects are limited to instant objects and conveying the determined behavior profiles to a second vehicle rather than to a vehicle of a fleet of vehicles within an operating environment, such that these two differences can be interpreted as minor differences in scope but still an obvious variant. As such a double patenting rejection is warranted here.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NING whose telephone number is (408) 918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
February 21, 2026
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661