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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 5/8/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19, 21 remain pending in the application. The rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained for claims 1-9, 19, and 21 and withdrawn for claims 10-18. Claims continue to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as described in the previous Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the amendment and new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1, 10, 19: “end to end trajectory planning module”, “heuristic planning modification module”, “heuristic planner module” (instructions executed on a processor [0006])
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1 and 19 recite "a memory", which can be interpreted as transitory waves.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 is directed to a product which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites, in part, “receive a set of sensor signals…generate a scene… generate…trajectory… receive trajectory…modify…algorithm …generate… actions…determine…reward value…select…action”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations of: sensors, modules is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally these sensors are well known sensors being used in their conventional manner, and thus are not significantly more than the judicial exception (see Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d, 1350 (Fed. Circ. 2016)). The additional element of a “computer” is just a generic computing device. Invocation of generic computing devices (to generate a scene) to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology, apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Claims 1 and 10 integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220185323A1 ("Dolben") in view of US20230096493A1 (“Sajadi”), US20220314792A1 (“Flake”), and US20220135075A1 (“Ng”). Claims 10-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolben, Flake, and Ng. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolben.
As per claims 1, 10 and 19 Dolben teaches the limitations of the vehicle and controller:
A vehicle comprising: a sensor suite including at least one camera; a controller including a processor and a memory, Dolben at least the abstract, [0003-004], [0021], [0024], [0030], [0056], [0006], [0037], [0034], [0047], [0027-0029])
Dolben does not explicitly and separately name the aforementioned end to end trajectory planning/heuristic planning modification/heuristic planner modules. Dolben (as taught above) does recite processor(s) configured to accomplish the claimed limitations (tasks). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate or combine program instructions on processors as necessary for certain architecture or safety standards such as ISO 26262.
As per claims 1 and 10 Dolben does not disclose:
the first set of predefined constraints includes at least a constraint restricting a top speed of the vehicle to at most 85 miles per hour
Flake teaches the aforementioned limitation. (Flake at least [0039])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dolben with the aforementioned limitations taught by Flake with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to limit the speed of a vehicle (Flake [0005]).
As per claim 1 and 10 Dolben does not disclose:
retrieve a first set of predefined constraints, generate a second set of constraints using information presented in the scene, compare the first set of predefined constraints and the second set of constraints to the end to end trajectory for the vehicle
Ng teaches the aforementioned limitations (Ng at least [0069], [0071], [0073], [0081-0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dolben with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve safety (Ng abstract).
As per claim 1 Dolben does not disclose:
the set of heuristic actions including a kinematic action defined by a unit of acceleration, a goal of a maneuver including a target lane and a target velocity at conclusion of the maneuver, and a progression of the maneuver along the end to end trajectory with the progression being defined using a first polynomial function s(t) with a station (s, position) relative to a starting position of the vehicle at a time t, and a second polynomial function with a lateral offset (d) of the vehicle at a time t, s(t) = a * + (n-1) * t^(n-1) + + a * + a 0, d(t) = b m * t^m + b (m-1) * t^(m-1) + + b1*t+b0
Sajadi teaches the aforementioned limitations (Sajadi at least [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dolben with the aforementioned limitations taught by Sajadi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve vehicle safety (Sajadi [0002]).
As per claims 2, 11 Dolben in combination with the other references teaches the limitations of the vehicle, method, and controller as described above. Dolben additionally teaches:
at least one autonomous vehicle system configured to receive the final heuristic action and implement the final heuristic action. (Dolben at least [0024], [0027])
As per claims 3 and 12 Dolben in combination with the other references teaches the limitations of the vehicle and method as described above. Dolben additionally teaches:
responding to the end to end trajectory violating at least one constraint of the first set of predefined constraints by discarding the end to end trajectory. (Dolben at least [0003]: “One or more behavior constraints … A trajectory can be selected from the set of trajectories based on determining that the trajectory satisfies one or more predetermined criteria”)
As per claims 4 and 13 Dolben in combination with the other references teaches the limitations of the vehicle and method as described above. Dolben additionally teaches:
a trajectory to action conversion process, wherein the trajectory to action conversion process receives the end to end trajectory and outputs an action defining the end to end trajectory, and wherein the action is in a same format as the set of heuristic actions of the heuristic planner module. (Dolben at least [0073-0076]: “an input/output (I/O) interface 708, a communication interface 710, and a bus ”) *Examiner’s note: an I/O interface or bus or equivalent is well known in the art for being capable of converting signal formats.
As per claims 5 and 14 Dolben in combination with the other references teaches the limitations of the vehicle and method as described above. Dolben additionally teaches:
determine a set of deviations, with each deviation corresponding to a distance between the end to end trajectory and one heuristic action in the set of heuristic actions. (Dolben at least [0047]: “candidate trajectories can be generated based on deviations … thresholds associated with minimum acceleration… applied to filter the candidate trajectories… scores of the candidate trajectories can be based on whether the candidate trajectories violate any constraints.”)
As per claims 6 and 15 Dolben in combination with the other references teaches the limitations of the vehicle and method as described above. Dolben additionally teaches:
adding a deviation reward value to the reward weighting algorithm wherein the deviation reward value for an action is a function of the deviation of that action from the end to end action. (Dolben at least [0047]: “Candidate trajectories that violate fewer constraints can be associated with higher scores than candidate trajectories that violate more constraints. ”)
As per claims 8 and 17 Dolben in combination with the other references teaches the limitations of the vehicle and method as described above. Dolben additionally teaches:
the heuristic planner module receives the scene from the end to end trajectory planning module and generates the set of heuristic actions for the vehicle based on the scene. (Dolben at least [0010], [0021], [0041])
As per claims 9 and 18 Dolben in combination with the other references teaches the limitations of the vehicle and method as described above. Dolben additionally teaches:
a trained neural network configured to receive the set of sensor signals as an input and provide the end to end trajectory for the vehicle as an output. (Dolben at least [0056])
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolben in view of Sajadi, Flake, Ng, in further view of CA DMV Driver's Handbook ("CA DMV") and Code of Virginia Title 46.2 Subtitle III Chapter 8 Article 7 ("CoV § 46.2-856").
As per claim 21, Dolben in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Dolben teaches the constraint including not colliding with obstacles nor intersecting with other objects (Dolben at least [0039]). Flake teaches the 85 mph top speed (Flake at least [0039] as in claim 1 above). Dolben does not disclose:
the vehicle may never pass multiple vehicles at once
CoV § 46.2-856 teaches the aforementioned limitations (“Passing two vehicles abreast.
A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who passes or attempts to pass two other vehicles abreast”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dolben with the aforementioned limitations taught by CoV § 46.2-856 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to comply with state laws.
Dolben does not disclose:
the vehicle may not cross double road lines
CA DMV teaches the aforementioned limitations (pg. 46, Vehicle Code § 21460 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dolben with the aforementioned limitations taught CA DMV with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to comply with state laws.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolben, Sajadi, Ng and Flake in view of US20260001572A1 ("Cai"). Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolben, Ng, and Flake in further view of Cai.
As per claims 7 and 16 Dolben in combination with the other references teaches the limitations of the vehicle and method as described above. Dolben does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a resulting weighting algorithm is r(s,a i )= rbase +w la( r(d i)), with r base being a reward value of an unmodified weighting algorithm, wla being a weighting constant and r(di) being a magnitude of the deviation of the action in the set of actions from the end to end action.
Cai teaches the aforementioned limitations (Cai at least claim 6: “S7.1 expressing the local optimization problem …the equation (16) is subject to following constraints…coupling coefficients of cost functions between different agents… state weight coefficient and a control weight coefficient …Qi is penalty for deviation, between an actual trajectory and an expected trajectory, reflecting desire of the vehicle to adhere to the expected trajectory”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dolben with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cai with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve control accuracy (Cai [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20240253622A1 (“Awathe”) teaches a similar polynomial function for trajectory planning as in claim 1 ([0034]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights