DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 12/31/2024 and IDS filed 8/29/2025.
In the application Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/29/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The Drawings filed on 12/31/2024 have been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. 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) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
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 computer-implemented method…” (process). Claim 19 is directed to “An autonomous vehicle control system…” (machine). Claim 20 is directed to “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media…” (composition of matter). Therefore, the claims are 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]). Claims 19 and 20 recites similar subject matter has in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method, comprising:
(a) obtaining sensor data descriptive of an environment of an autonomous vehicle [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering, pre-solution activity];
(b) determining a plurality of short-term trajectories based on the sensor data, the plurality of short-term trajectories comprising a first short-term trajectory that is descriptive of a first candidate short-term motion path for the autonomous vehicle from an initial state to a first end state [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
(c) determining a plurality of long-term trajectories based on the sensor data, the plurality of long-term trajectories comprising a first long-term trajectory that is descriptive of a first candidate long-term motion path for the autonomous vehicle from the initial state to a second end state, wherein a time span between the initial state and the second end state is longer than a time span between the initial state and the first end state [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
(d) generating a first trajectory pairing based on the first short-term trajectory and the first long-term trajectory, the trajectory pairing comprising a first portion that is defined by the short-term trajectory that spans from the initial state to the first end state, and a second portion that is defined by a segment of the long-term trajectory that spans from the first end state to the second end state [mental process] & [mathematical concept]; and
(e) determining, from among the plurality of short-term trajectories, a short-term trajectory for execution by the autonomous vehicle based on the first trajectory pairing [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute “mathematical concepts” & a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Claim 1 amounts to analyzing trajectory information and evaluation of candidate options which falls under a mental process that can be performed in the mind. Furthermore, defining and/or calculating a path and defining an initial state and end state fall under mathematical/geometrical calculations and defining temporal parameters. In addition to performing a comparison between the initial and second end state being longer than a span between the initial state and the first end state falls under mathematical concept. Generating a trajectory pairing involves combining two candidate paths and segmenting one at a time boundary which is partitioning/concatenation and falls under a mathematical operation.
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”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
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 “obtaining sensor data…” & “determining…a short-term trajectory for execution…”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to pre-solution activity and data gathering via generic sensors collecting environmental parameters. In addition, determining a short-term trajectory for execution is post-solution activity that involves selecting and storing the result without using the trajectory to actually modify the operational state of the vehicle for navigation.
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 (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 claims 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 “obtaining sensor data…” & “determining…a short-term trajectory for execution…”, 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 examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-7 and 12, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe associating trajectories based on time and spatial dimensions which involves comparison/correlation. Determining the closest trajectory and predicting vehicle passing behavior and proximity involve judgment/prediction which is a mental process. Selecting trajectory based on comparing pairings can be performed mentally. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 4-5, 8-9, 11 and 15, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe parsing and segmenting trajectories based on time intervals, generating cost data and using it to select a trajectory via weighted evaluation/selection, aggregating sub-costs across attributes (scoring), computing proximity and fuel consumption values, generating a trajectory pairing and quantitative ratio relationship between trajectory sets fall under mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 10 and 13-14, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe constraining long-term trajectories to motion goals, specifying trajectories as being determined separately and specifying parallel determination (operational constraint) amount to field-of-use in autonomous vehicles [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 16 and 17, - do recite significantly more than an abstract idea has they control the motion of an autonomous vehicle.
Dependent claims 18, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describes using a graph neural network to process the sensor data which is a technological application via ML model and 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 [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. Pub 2019/0235509, filed Oct. 18, 2016) in view of Jason Hardy herein Hardy (NPL-Contingency Planning Over Probabilistic Obstacle Predictions for Autonomous Road Vehicles, August 2013, IEEE, pgs. 913-929).
Regarding Independent claims 1, 19 and 20, Takahashi discloses A computer-implemented method, comprising:
(a) obtaining sensor data descriptive of an environment of an autonomous vehicle (see paragraphs 12 and 137, discloses external environment recognition information, including static and dynamic data obtained from external environment sensors);
(b) determining a plurality of short-term trajectories based on the sensor data, the plurality of short-term trajectories comprising a first short-term trajectory that is descriptive of a first candidate short-term motion path for the autonomous vehicle from an initial state to a first end state (see paragraph 82, discloses short-term trajectory generating unit 73 that generates multiple trajectories point sequence candidates per operation cycle from current state to an end state);
(c) determining a plurality of long-term trajectories based on the sensor data, the plurality of long-term trajectories comprising a first long-term trajectory that is descriptive of a first candidate long-term motion path for the autonomous vehicle from the initial state to a second end state, wherein a time span between the initial state and the second end state is longer than a time span between the initial state and the first end state (see paragraphs 73 and 80, discloses long-term trajectory generating unit 71 generates a 10-sec trajectory from a current state to a distant end state including short-term 1-sec trajectories thereby establishing a temporal hierarchy); Takahashi discloses short-term and long-term trajectories in a hierarchal relationship including selection of the short-term trajectory from candidates based on evaluation against long-term trajectory. Takahashi fails to construct a trajectory pairing that includes a short-term portion concatenated with a contiguous segment of the long-term trajectory.
Hardy discloses:
(d) generating a first trajectory pairing based on the first short-term trajectory and the first long-term trajectory, the trajectory pairing comprising a first portion that is defined by the short-term trajectory that spans from the initial state to the first end state, and a second portion that is defined by a segment of the long-term trajectory that spans from the first end state to the second end state (see pgs. 915-916 section A & Fig. 2, discloses constraining all contingency paths to share a common initial segment with each path. Thereby mapping to first portion/short-term trajectory and second portion/segment of the long-term trajectory spanning from the branch point to an end state); and
(e) determining, from among the plurality of short-term trajectories, a short-term trajectory for execution by the autonomous vehicle based on the first trajectory pairing (see pgs. 915-916 section A & Fig. 2, discloses selection of a contingency path to execute by evaluating the cost of the full composite trajectory comprising shared trunk + long-horizon branch with only the initial shared segment being executed). Both Takahashi and Hardy share the same technical field of autonomous vehicle motion planning with trajectory selection. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supplemented the composite trajectory pairing concept into the hierarchical planning architecture for improved path optimization and safer vehicle interaction has suggested by Hardy (see abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 2, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi fails to construct a trajectory pairing that includes a short-term portion concatenated with a contiguous segment of the long-term trajectory. Hardy discloses wherein generating the first trajectory pairing comprises determining that the first short-term trajectory is associated with the first long-term trajectory based on a time dimension and a spatial dimension (see pgs. 915-916 section A & Fig. 2). Both Takahashi and Hardy share the same technical field of autonomous vehicle motion planning with trajectory selection. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supplemented the composite trajectory pairing concept into the hierarchical planning architecture for improved path optimization and safer vehicle interaction has suggested by Hardy (see abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 3 with dependency of claim 2, Takahashi fails to construct a trajectory pairing that includes a short-term portion concatenated with a contiguous segment of the long-term trajectory. Hardy discloses wherein the long-term trajectory is the closest, of the plurality of long-term trajectories, to the short-term trajectory with respect to the time dimension and the spatial dimension (see pgs. 915-916 section A & Fig. 2). Both Takahashi and Hardy share the same technical field of autonomous vehicle motion planning with trajectory selection. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supplemented the composite trajectory pairing concept into the hierarchical planning architecture for improved path optimization and safer vehicle interaction has suggested by Hardy (see abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi fails to construct a trajectory pairing that includes a short-term portion concatenated with a contiguous segment of the long-term trajectory. Hardy discloses wherein the initial state is associated with an initial time, wherein the first end state of the first short-term trajectory is associated with a first time, wherein the second end state of the second long-term trajectory is associated with a second time that is after the first time, and wherein (d) comprises: generating the first portion of the first trajectory pairing based on the first short-term trajectory spanning from the initial time to the first time; parsing, based on the first time, the long-term trajectory into a first segment that spans from the initial time to the first time and a second segment that spans from the first time to the second time; and generating the second portion of the first trajectory pairing based on the second segment of the long-term trajectory (see pgs. 915-916 section A & Fig. 2). Both Takahashi and Hardy share the same technical field of autonomous vehicle motion planning with trajectory selection. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supplemented the composite trajectory pairing concept into the hierarchical planning architecture for improved path optimization and safer vehicle interaction has suggested by Hardy (see abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi discloses generating cost data associated with the first trajectory pairing; and wherein (e) comprises determining, from among the plurality of short-term trajectories, the short-term trajectory for execution by the autonomous vehicle based on the cost data associated with first trajectory pairing (see paragraphs 82, 121 and 141, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 5, Takahashi discloses short-term and long-term trajectories in a hierarchal relationship including selection of the short-term trajectory from candidates based on evaluation against long-term trajectory. Takahashi fails to construct a trajectory pairing that includes a short-term portion concatenated with a contiguous segment of the long-term trajectory. Hardy discloses wherein the cost data is generated based on a prediction of whether the first trajectory pairing causes the autonomous vehicle to pass an adjacent vehicle (see pgs. 915-916 section A & Fig. 2). Both Takahashi and Hardy share the same technical field of autonomous vehicle motion planning with trajectory selection. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supplemented the composite trajectory pairing concept into the hierarchical planning architecture for improved path optimization and safer vehicle interaction has suggested by Hardy (see abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 5, Takahashi fails to construct a trajectory pairing that includes a short-term portion concatenated with a contiguous segment of the long-term trajectory. Hardy discloses wherein the cost data is generated based on a prediction of whether the first trajectory pairing causes the autonomous vehicle to be within a threshold distance of another vehicle in a same lane as the autonomous vehicle (see pgs. 915-916 section A & Fig. 2). Both Takahashi and Hardy share the same technical field of autonomous vehicle motion planning with trajectory selection. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supplemented the composite trajectory pairing concept into the hierarchical planning architecture for improved path optimization and safer vehicle interaction has suggested by Hardy (see abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 5, Takahashi discloses wherein the cost data is descriptive of a plurality of subcosts, wherein the plurality of subcosts are associated with a plurality of different candidate route attributes, wherein the plurality of different candidate route attributes comprise one or more candidate route attributes that are associated with at least one of a vehicle inefficiency, a driving hazard, or route inefficiency (see paragraphs 10, 73 and 135, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 5, Takahashi discloses wherein the cost data is descriptive of a determined proximity to one or more other objects in the environment for the first trajectory pairing and a determined fuel consumption for the first trajectory pairing (see paragraph 12, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi discloses wherein the plurality of long-term trajectories are determined based on strategy data associated with a motion goal of the autonomous vehicle (see paragraphs 72-73, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi discloses wherein the plurality of short-term trajectories comprises a second short-term trajectory that is descriptive of a second candidate short-term motion path for the autonomous vehicle, and wherein the plurality of long-term trajectories comprises a second long-term trajectory that is descriptive of a second candidate long-term motion path for the autonomous vehicle, and wherein the method further comprises: generating a second trajectory pairing based on the second short-term trajectory and the second long-term trajectory (see paragraph 82, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 11, Takahashi discloses wherein (e) comprises determining the short-term trajectory for execution by the autonomous vehicle based on the first trajectory pairing and the second trajectory pairing (see paragraphs 82 and 141, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 13, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi discloses wherein the plurality of short-term trajectories and the long-term trajectory are determined separately (see paragraphs 8 and 132, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 14, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi discloses wherein the plurality of short-term trajectories and the long-term trajectory are determined in parallel (see paragraphs 8 and 133, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 15, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi discloses wherein the quantity of short-term trajectories within the plurality of short-term trajectories is greater than the quantity of long-term trajectories within the plurality of long-term trajectories (see paragraphs 72 and 82, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 16, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi discloses controlling a motion of the autonomous vehicle based on the short-term trajectory determined for execution by the autonomous vehicle (see paragraphs 78 and 83, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 17, with dependency of claim 15, Takahashi discloses wherein controlling the motion of the autonomous vehicle comprising providing one or more signals for the autonomous vehicle to operate in accordance with the short-term trajectory determined for execution by the autonomous vehicle (see paragraph 83, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 18, with dependency of claim 1, Takahashi fails to construct a trajectory pairing that includes a short-term portion concatenated with a contiguous segment of the long-term trajectory. Hardy discloses wherein (b) comprises: processing the sensor data with a machine-learned graph neural network model to determine the plurality of short-term trajectories (see pg. 921 section A). Both Takahashi and Hardy share the same technical field of autonomous vehicle motion planning with trajectory selection. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supplemented the composite trajectory pairing concept into the hierarchical planning architecture for improved path optimization and safer vehicle interaction has suggested by Hardy (see abstract).
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
4/1/2026
Prosecution Insights