DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “100” in Fig. 1; and “433” in Fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of proper language and format for an abstract (see MPEP § 608.01(b)):
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: “The present invention provides” is a phrase which can be implied and should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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:
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;
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
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.
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 claims, as drafted, include embodiments directed to an abstract idea.
As per Claim 1, the claim is directed to a method for predicting, the method including: “predicting” as per line 3-6; “predicting” as per line 7-9; and “generating” as per line 10-11. The steps of “predicting” in lines 3-6 and 7-9 are not expressly performed in any device and follow data collection. As drafted, the claim language includes embodiments in which the steps of predicting are performed mentally as by a person mentally evaluating collected position data and mentally evaluating collected sensor data. As drafted, the step of “generating a control signal” is insignificant extra-solution activity in that the action of generating a control signal is otherwise well-known and the action of generating is nominally or tangentially related to the otherwise mental activity recited in the claim. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the mental processes are not integrated into a practical application in that none of the recited acts describe improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology. For example, the steps of “predicting” are not necessarily performed in connection with any device. As another example, the remote vehicle does not necessarily function any differently in response to the generated control signal as claimed than it would in response to any other generated control signal. Accordingly, the claim language does not identify a practical application that would remove the claimed steps from the domain of the human mind.
In addition, the claim as drafted does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim language is silent as to hardware that performs the otherwise mental activity. Therefore, Claim 1 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 2, the claim further recites wherein the operation of “predicting” in line 3-6 of Claim 1 is “performed by one or more processors”. However, as drafted, the claim includes embodiments directed to a computer used as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process of predicting in that the step of “predicting” in line 3-6 is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses the one or more processors to perform the mental processes. Therefore, Claim 3 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 3, the claim further describes first intent predicted as per line 3-6 of Claim 1. The claim does not recite hardware that performs the recited function. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 3 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 4, the claim recites transmitting data determined as per Claim 3. The step of transmitting as per Claim 4 is insignificant extra-solution activity in that the action of transmitting data is otherwise well-known and the action of transmitting is nominally or tangentially related to the otherwise mental activity recited in the claim. Therefore, Claim 4 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 5, the claim recites that a model is selected. The claim does not recite hardware that performs the recited function. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 5 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 6, the claim further recites wherein the operation of “predicting” in line 7-9 of Claim 1 is “performed by one or more processors”. However, as drafted, the claim includes embodiments directed to a computer used as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process of predicting in that the step of “predicting” in line 7-9 is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses the one or more processors to perform the mental processes. Therefore, Claim 6 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 7, the claim further describes second intent predicted as per line 7-9 of Claim 1. The claim does not recite hardware that performs the recited function. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 7 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 8, that claim recites that sensor data “are used for hazard avoidance”. The claim does not recite hardware implemented to be so “used”. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 8 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 9, the claim further describes second intent predicted as per line 7-9 of Claim 1. The claim does not recite hardware that performs the recited function. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 9 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 10, further describes second intent predicted as per line 7-9 of Claim 1. The claim does not recite hardware that performs the recited function. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 10 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 11, the claim further describes second intent predicted as per line 7-9 of Claim 1. The claim does not recite hardware that performs the recited function. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 11 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 12, the claim further describes second intent predicted as per line 7-9 of Claim 1. The claim does not recite hardware that performs the recited function. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 12 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 13, the claim further describes second intent predicted as per line 7-9 of Claim 1. The claim does not recite hardware that performs the recited function. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 13 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 14, the claim further describes second intent predicted as per line 7-9 of Claim 1. The claim does not recite hardware that performs the recited function. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 14 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 15, the claim further describes executing a trajectory by synchronizing based on the second intent predicted as per line 7-9 of Claim 1. As drafted, the step of “synchronizing a clock” is insignificant extra-solution activity in that the action of synchronizing is otherwise well-known and the action of generating is nominally or tangentially related to the otherwise mental activity recited in the claim. Therefore, Claim 15 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 16, the claim is directed to a system comprising: “a first processor” as per line 3-6; “a second processor” as per line 7-11. There is no conjunction after the description of the first processor in line 3-6. In accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system comprises the first processor as per line 3-6 or the second processor as per line 7-11. As drafted, the system includes embodiments in which the “first processor” as per line 3-6 is used as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process of “predict” in line 3-4 after collecting position data as per line 4-6. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the mental process is not integrated into a practical application in that none of the recited acts describe improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology. For example, the action of “predict” does not necessarily result in a change in functioning of the remote vehicle. Accordingly, the claim language does not identify a practical application that would remove the claimed steps from the domain of the human mind.
In addition, the claim as drafted does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The hardware that is recited, namely the first processor, as drafted, is directed to embodiments involving a tool that performs the otherwise mental process. Therefore, Claim 16 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 17, the claim further describes the action of predicting the first intent. The claim does not recite hardware that functions differently as a result of the predicting. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 17 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 18, the claim further describes the action of predicting the first intent. The claim does not recite hardware that functions differently as a result of the predicting. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 18 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 19, the claim further describes the action of predicting the first intent. The claim does not recite hardware that functions differently as a result of the predicting. As such, the claim further describes mental activity. Therefore, Claim 19 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 20, the claim further describes the action of predicting the second intent. However, as discussed above, predicting the second intent is directed to alternative embodiments of the claimed system. Therefore, Claim 20 is not eligible for patent protection.
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.
Claims 16-20 are 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.
As per Claim 16, there is no conjunction in line 6 after “control station;”. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the system necessarily involves the first and second processors. Amendment to insert “and” after “control station;” in line 6 is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 17-20 depending from Claim 16 are therefore rejected.
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 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Summer (US Pub. No. 2015/0120048).
As per Claim 16, Summer discloses a system (100) for predicting an operator's intent (as per “user intent” in ¶21; as per 304, 306) for controlling a remote vehicle (102) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶21-22, 36), the system (100) comprising:
(a) a first processor (412) programmed to predict a first intent (as per 304, 306) over a short horizon (as per metadata 204i) based on an input device position data (as per 304), wherein the input device position data (as per 304) are collected from an input control device (112) for controlling the remote vehicle (102) and wherein the first processor (412) is located at a control station (108, 110, 112) (Figs. 1-4; ¶22-24, 33-39);
{(b) a second processor programmed to i) predict a second intent over a long horizon based at least in part on the first intent and real-time sensor data, and ii) generate a control signal for controlling one or more actuators of the remote vehicle based on the second intent, wherein the real-time sensor data are collected from one or more sensors onboard the remote vehicle and wherein the second progressor is located at the remote vehicle} [under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations (a) and (b) are alternative embodiments in view of absence of “and” after limitation (a)].
As per Claim 20, Summer further discloses {wherein the second intent is further predicted based on a dynamic model of the remote vehicle} [limitation directed to alternative embodiment (b)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Margolin (US Patent No. 5,904,724), Duggan (US Pub. No. 2005/0004723), Gariepy (US Pub. No. 2010/0084513), Wang (US Pub. No. 2014/0374541), Bachrach (US Pub. No. 2015/0370250), Nehmadi (US Pub. No. 2016/0116912), Jugade (“Human-Intelligent System Shared Control Strategy with Conflict Resolution”; 2018 IEEE 14th International Conference on Control and Automation; 2018; pages 686-691), and Mangharam (US Pub. No. 2020/0348696) disclose various control systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights