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 .
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.
According to step 1:
Claims 1-12 are an apparatus claim i.e. a performance analysis computing system.
Claims 13-18 are directed to a method claim, i.e. a computer-implemented method.
Claims 19, 20 are directed to apparatus claim i.e. a non0trnasistory computer-readable medium.
According to step 2A, prong 1 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
That is:
Claim(s) 1-12 are directed to a performance analysis computing system for analyzing autonomous vehicle fleet performance based on collected feedback.
Claims 13-18 are directed to a method.
Claims 19 and 20 are directed one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions executable by one or more processors to cause a performance analysis computing system to perform operations.
Independent claim 1 recites:
-one or more processors;
-one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to….,
-accessing vehicle performance feedback data from a plurality of autonomous vehicles,
-respective feedback data associated with an event and from a respective interface device associated with the respective autonomous vehicle,
-respective vehicle data associated with the respective feedback data and collected by the respective autonomous vehicle over a time window prior to the event,
-aggregating the vehicle performance feedback data; and computing an aggregate performance score based on the aggregated vehicle performance feedback data.
Independent claim 13 recites:
-accessing vehicle performance feedback data from a plurality of autonomous vehicles,
-respective feedback data associated with an event and from a respective interface device associated with the respective autonomous vehicle,
-respective vehicle data associated with the respective feedback data and collected by the respective autonomous vehicle over a time window prior to the event,
-aggregating the vehicle performance feedback data,
-computing an aggregate performance score based on the aggregated vehicle performance feedback data.
Independent claim 19 recites:
-accessing vehicle performance feedback data from a plurality of autonomous vehicles,
-respective vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles,
-respective feedback data associated with an event and from a respective interface device associated with the respective autonomous vehicle;
-respective vehicle data associated with the respective feedback data and collected by the respective autonomous vehicle over a time window prior to the event,
-aggregating the vehicle performance feedback data,
-computing an aggregate performance score based on the aggregated vehicle performance feedback data.
These limitations are directed to obtaining intangible data, using an algorithm for calculating parameters and organizing information through a mathematical correlation.
Although claims 9 and 17 each recites, “….wherein the event comprises a human intervention event in which a human driver assumed control of the respective vehicle” it is still an abstract idea because it is an idea performed or controlled by a human rather than a machine.
According to step 2A, prong 2 the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims have an additional element of one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media…., a plurality of autonomous vehicles, a plurality of autonomous vehicles, a user interface, etc. These elements simply apply the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by generally linking it to a performance analysis computing system. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
According to step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because even though the claims recite in general one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media…., a plurality of autonomous vehicles, a plurality of autonomous vehicles, a user interface, etc these elements are merely used to describe or practice the abstract idea of analyzing autonomous vehicle fleet performance based on collected feedback data. Accordingly, the claims recite additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element generally links the use of the judicial exception to analyze autonomous vehicle fleet performance based on collected feedback data.– see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Applicant may overcome the 101rejection by reciting a computer or controller that controls the vehicle or vehicles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant’s attention is drawn to US 11568689), (US. Pub 2008/0161988), (US Pub 2017/0337027), (US pub 2014/0357295), (US pub 2017/0364869), (Field (US 12013695 B1), Nix (US 10346888 B2), Liu (US 10520947 B2), Ratnasingam (US 10407078 B2)
Applicant’s attention also is directed Thompson (US 10429831 B2) who is believed to disclose performance analysis computing system for analyzing autonomous vehicle fleet performance based on collected feedback (figs. 1-7, 11-17; col. 3, lines 56 to col. 4, lines 16), the computing system comprising:
one or more processors (col. 5, lines 66 to col. 6, lines 42); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the performance analysis computing system to perform operations (col. 5, lines 66 to col. 6, lines 29; col. 9, lines 45-58), the operations comprising:
accessing vehicle performance feedback data from a plurality of autonomous vehicles, wherein the vehicle performance feedback data comprises, for a respective vehicle of the plurality of autonomous vehicles (col. 3, lines 56 to col. 4, lines 16; col. 6, lines 30-67; col. 7, lines 1-12):
respective feedback data associated with an event and from a respective interface device associated with the respective autonomous vehicle (e.g. tracking event; col. 3, lines 56 to col. 4, lines 16; col. 6, lines 30-67; col. 7, lines 1-12); and
respective vehicle data associated with the respective feedback data and collected by the respective autonomous vehicle over a time window prior to the event (e.g. pre-stored data; col. 3, lines 56 to col. 4, lines 16; col. 6, lines 30-67; col. 7, lines 1-12);
aggregating the vehicle performance feedback data (combining performance data, e.g. drive, fork lift, raising, loading, etc, col. 11, lines 50 to col. 12, lines 15, lines 47 to col. 13, lines 39) ; and
computing an aggregate performance score based on the aggregated vehicle performance feedback data (col. 17, lines 48 to col. 18, lines 18).
11568689 20080161988 20170337027 20140357295 20170364869 12013695 10346888 10520947 10407078 B2
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights