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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The term “unusual” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unusual” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification at pages 11 and 12 discuss examples of what might be unusual, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of what would constitute unusual or not.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “computer program product comprising instructions…” which under a broadest reasonable interpretation can be interpreted as software (software per se). The court has found that software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment, does not fall within any statutory category. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Analysis of claim 1:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method of determining utilisation of resources in a system having autonomous capability, the method comprising:
receiving (304) a plurality of input data from a respective plurality of components of the system;
receiving (302) rule set data comprising a plurality of rules, each of the plurality of rules configured to determine an integrity value for the input data;
processing (306) the plurality of input data and the rule set data to generate an integrity value for each of the plurality of input data, and
using (308) the integrity values to determine utilisation of resources of the system.
The limitations highlighted in claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of processing input data against rules to get a value for the input data and then determining how to utilize resources based on the value(s). This is equivalent to a person receiving sensor data and interpreting the sensor data against defined rules to determine if the sensor data seems plausibly true and then making a determination of whether utilize the sensor or not, or how much weight to give the sensor in an overall analysis. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The examiner notes that the claim as currently presented (under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim) do not require the processing of fusion of any specific sensor data, but merely the high level interpretation of sensor data to determine validity.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method of determining utilisation of resources in a system having autonomous capability, the method comprising:
receiving (304) a plurality of input data from a respective plurality of components of the system;
receiving (302) rule set data comprising a plurality of rules, each of the plurality of rules configured to determine an integrity value for the input data;
processing (306) the plurality of input data and the rule set data to generate an integrity value for each of the plurality of input data, and
using (308) the integrity values to determine utilisation of resources of the system.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering sensor data from a vehicle and set of rules regarding the sensor data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Still further, the method being implemented on a computer are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. At best, this limitation is the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the claim. As such, claim 1 is not integrated into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there are three additional elements. The first two are the obtaining steps and the second is the implementation on a computer. These elements are generic and conventional components in the art. The obtaining of sensor data and data set rules is merely well understood, routine and conventional activity for vehicle controllers/processing systems. MPEP 2106.05(d) Further, the computer is recited at a high level of generality (merely a computer), and as such is generic and conventional in the art. The use of a computer to process and interpret sensor data is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for computer processors.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of claims 2-11:
Dependent claims 2-11 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-11 include limitations that are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exceptions and/or are well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. For example, claims 2, 3, 5 and 7-11 contain limitations that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind, as they are merely collecting information, evaluating the information according to rules and determining more information therefrom, and are analyzed using a similar analysis as applied to claim 1 above. Further, claims 4 and 6 contain additional limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and they amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
Analysis of claims 12-15:
Dependent claims 12-15 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 12-15 include limitations that are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exceptions and/or are well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Instead, the limitations of claims 12-15 are merely commensurate to claim 1, with claim 1 being drawn to a computer implemented method, claim 12 being drawn to corresponding software (which as such does not pass Step 1, however, even if it did would not pass Step 2), claim 13 being drawn to a corresponding device, claim 14 being drawn to a corresponding system, and claim 15 being drawn to a corresponding vehicle. As such, claims 12-15 are analyzed using a similar analysis as applied to claim 1 above, with the additional limitations of claims 12-15 being, at best, the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the claim.
As such, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halder et al. (US 2019/0310650).
With respect to claim 1, Halder teaches a computer-implemented method of determining utilisation of resources in a system having autonomous capability (see at least Abstract and ¶[0008], the method comprising: receiving a plurality of input data from a respective plurality of components of the system (see at least Fig. 1A, 2 and 6; and ¶[0141]); receiving rule set data comprising a plurality of rules, each of the plurality of rules configured to determine an integrity value for the input data (see at least Fi.g 6 and 9; ¶[0146]-[0148]); processing the plurality of input data and the rule set data to generate an integrity value for each of the plurality of input data (see at least ¶[0148]-[0168), and using the integrity values to determine utilisation of resources of the system (see at least ¶[0138]-[0139, [0153] and [0180] where in the decision of whether or not to use the prediction (sensor data) is based on the confidence score before fusing the sensor data).
With respect to claim 2, Halder teaches wherein the processing the plurality of input data and the rule set data to generate an integrity value for each of the plurality of input data comprises: generating a low integrity value for the input data if the input data indicates unusual behaviour of a detected object or system component (see at least ¶[0148]-[ [0153]).
With respect to claim 3, Halder teaches wherein the processing the plurality of input data and the rule set data to generate an integrity value for each of the plurality of input data comprises: generating a high integrity value for the input data if the input data matches one or more other input data (see at least ¶[0148]-[ [0153]).
With respect to claim 4, Halder teaches 1 wherein the plurality of input data comprises a plurality of track data output by a respective plurality of sensors, and wherein each of the plurality of track data comprises information regarding at least one entity detected by the respective sensor (see at least ¶[0129] and [0147]).
With respect to claim 5, Halder teaches wherein the method further comprises using the integrity values to determine utilisation of the sensors in future tracking of the detected entities (see at least ¶[0111]-[0115] and [0209]).
With respect to claim 7, Halder teaches wherein the integrity value represents confidence that the detected entity of the track data is a real object, and a rule in the rule set data generates a high integrity value for the track data upon determining that the detected entity of the track data is likely to be a real object (see at least ¶[0138], [0141], [0146] and [0148]).
With respect to claim 8, Halder teaches further comprising: receiving task data relating to a plurality of tasks to be performed by the system; checking the integrity values determined for each input data associated with a said task, and generating data indicating whether the component providing that input data should continue to be used as a resource for that task (see at least ¶[0111]-[0115] and [0209]).
With respect to claim 9, Halder teaches wherein each of the plurality of tasks has an associated importance value, and a threshold value is set lower for a task having a low importance value, and the threshold value is set higher for a task having a high importance value (see at least ¶[0103], [0214]-[0224]).
With respect to claim 10, Halder teaches further comprising: receiving a plurality of resource usage data, each of the plurality of resource usage data comprising a value representing a current usage level of a resource of the system, and processing the resource usage data and the data integrity value relating to a component performing a task to generate a target usage level of the resource to be used in relation to the task (see at least ¶[0085]-[0115]).
With respect to claim 11, Halder teaches wherein the task comprises tracking an object using a resource comprising a sensor, and the processing comprises reducing the target usage level of the sensor if the data integrity value of the sensor is low (see at least ¶[0079], [0111]-[0115] and [0209]).
With respect to claims 12-15, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 1, which is commensurate in scope to claims 12-15, with claim 1 being drawn to a computer implemented method, claim 12 being drawn to corresponding software, claim 13 being drawn to a corresponding device, claim 14 being drawn to a corresponding system, and claim 15 being drawn to a corresponding vehicle.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halder (US 2019/0310650) in view of Rodriguez Bravo et al. (US 2020/0331484).
With respect to claim 6, Halder teaches an autonomous control system for an autonomous vehicle that verifies the data coming out of sensors prior to the fusing of the sensors data for ultimate control of the autonomous vehicle and determines whether or not to use the sensor data based on such verification, and as such teaches obtaining additional sensor data from at least one of the plurality of sensors, the additional sensor data comprising a confidence rating for the track data provided by the sensor (see at least ¶[0141]-[0168). Halder does not explicitly teach that the additional sensor data is used by at least one of the rules in the plurality of rules. However, such matter is taught by Rodriguez Bravo et al. (see at least Fig. 2 and ¶[0020] and [0042]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the infrastructure for determining in AI models used for interpreting sensor data in an autonomous vehicle with the technique of Rodriguez Bravo et al. that uses data from other sensors on the same vehicle to validate the sensor data of a first sensor, as both systems are drawn to determining sensor/sensor reading integrity in autonomous vehicle control systems in order to ensure safety and efficiency in the operation of the autonomous vehicle, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of verifying the data from one sensor on an autonomous vehicle with data from other sensors on the same autonomous vehicle and would have predictably applied it in the system of Halder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI whose telephone number is (313)446-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, JAMES TRAMMELL can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3666A
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights