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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 15-20 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.
Claim limitation “means for” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed toward a method and vehicle. Therefore, it can be seen that they fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, the claims clearly do not meet the three-prong test for patentability.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and/or
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 8 recites:
An ego vehicle comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
obtaining indications of a plurality of driving gaps;
determining that one or more feasible driving gaps, of the plurality of driving gaps, are feasible for occupation by an ego vehicle; and
determining a cost of occupation of only each of the one or more feasible driving gaps.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining that one or more feasible driving gaps are feasible for occupation by an ego vehicle” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally analyzing the data and determining feasible driving gaps for occupation by the ego vehicle. Similarly, the limitation of “determining a cost of occupation of only each of the one or more feasible driving gaps” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the cost of occupation by the one or more feasible driving gaps. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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”):
An ego vehicle comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
obtaining indications of a plurality of driving gaps;
determining that one or more feasible driving gaps, of the plurality of driving gaps, are feasible for occupation by an ego vehicle; and
determining a cost of occupation of only each of the one or more feasible driving gaps.
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 indications of a plurality of driving gaps”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract ideal (MPEP § 2106.05). Lastly, the “at least one processor” recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. Notably, there is no actual use or presentation of the motion plans, such as controlling the vehicle.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 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 using one or more processors to perform the determining ... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtaining indications of a plurality of driving gaps”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities as previously discussed.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving multiple service requests for transport from multiple customers” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the user device is anything other than a conventional computer. 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), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., further characterizing the receipt of data and the mental processes). Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sefati et al. (US 2025/0333062 A1) (Sefati hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Sefati discloses an autonomous driving gap analysis method (Abstract) comprising:
obtaining indication of a plurality of driving gaps ([0039], at operation 102, the planning component may generate candidate trajectories. In some examples, a vehicle may navigate environment from a starting location to an ending location. While traversing the environment, the vehicle may generate one or more candidate trajectories that the vehicle may evaluate when determining how to proceed);
determining that one or more feasible driving gaps, of the plurality of driving gaps, are feasible for occupation by an ego vehicle ([0040], at operation 112, the planning component may determine that a candidate trajectory enters a laterally adjacent driving lane. In some examples, the candidate trajectories generated at operation 102 may instruct the vehicle 106 to perform various different operations, such as to change driving lanes); and
determining a cost of occupation of only each of the one or more feasible driving gaps ([0042], at operation 126, the planning component may determine a lane changing cost associated with following the candidate trajectory to the target driving lane 110).
Regarding claim 2, Sefati discloses the method of claim 1, as stated above, further comprising controlling movement of the ego vehicle for occupying a selected feasible driving gap of the one or more feasible driving gaps for future occupation by the ego vehicle ([0043], at operation 130, the planning component may control the vehicle based on the lane changing cost).
Regarding claim 3, Sefati discloses the method of claim 2, as stated above, further comprising determining the selected feasible driving gap as the feasible driving gap of the one or more feasible driving gaps having a lowest cost of occupation from among the one or more feasible driving gaps ([0021], the vehicle can determine a control trajectory based on the tree structure ... having a lowest determined overall cost).
Regarding claim 4, Sefati discloses the method of claim 3, as stated above, wherein determining the cost of occupation of only each of the one or more feasible driving gaps comprises evaluating, by a machine learning regression model, a first set of gap synchronization parameters for each of the one or more feasible driving gaps ([0076]).
Regarding claim 5, Sefati discloses the method of claim 4, as stated above, wherein the first set of gap synchronization parameters comprise object location information, or object motion information, or trajectory information from the ego vehicle to a respective one of the one or more feasible driving gaps, or a time horizon, or ego vehicle movement safety information, or ego vehicle movement comfort information, or any combination of two or more thereof ([0040], the states 116 may include data such as position data, vehicle heading data, vehicle velocity data, etc.).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sefati discloses the method of claim 1, as stated above, wherein determining that the one or more feasible driving gaps comprises evaluating, by a machine learning classification model, a second set of gap synchronization parameters for each of the plurality of driving gaps; and wherein the second set of gap synchronization parameters comprise object location information, or object motion information, or trajectory information from the ego vehicle to s respective one of the one or more feasible driving gaps, or a time horizon, or ego vehicle movement safety information, or ego vehicle movement comfort information, or any combination of two or more thereof ([0051]).
Regarding claims 8-14, the elements contained in claims 8-14 are substantially similar to elements presented in claims 1-7, respectively, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a vehicle rather than a method and are rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Regarding claims 15-20, the elements contained in claims 15-20 are substantially similar to elements presented in claims 1-6, respectively, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a vehicle rather than a method and are rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Huynh whose telephone number is 571-270-5746. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 8-5, Tues 8-12, Thurs & Fri 8-2.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/LUKE HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
07/14/2026
Prosecution Insights