DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application No. 19/088359 filed on 3/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
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 of a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 16 (although not verbatim, but contain the same concept) recite the following:
A vehicle comprising:
a sensor configured to collect data associated with a merge scenario, wherein the data includes data associated with at least one traffic vehicle; and
a controller comprising at least one memory configured to store program instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the program instructions, wherein the controller is programmed to:
execute a first planning methodology, using data received from the sensor, to determine if there is at least one kinematically feasible merge gap defined by at least one traffic vehicle; and
if the controller determines that there is at least one kinematically feasible merge gap, then the controller:
identifies a target merge gap that includes one of the at least one determined kinematically feasible merge gap, and determines a merge plan for merging with the target merge gap; and
if the controller determines that there is not at least one feasible merge gap, the controller compares the data to a switch criterion to determine if a second planning methodology is required.
The aforementioned bolded steps have been determined to be an abstract idea of a mental process that gathers and stores information relating to determining if a vehicle can feasibly merge into a merging gap on the road. Effectively the idea of itself is for determining whether or not a vehicle can merge into a gap on the road and then determining an appropriate merging plan for a vehicle which is similar to the concepts deemed by the courts to be abstract such as collecting, analyzing, and displaying available data in Electric Power Group.
Each of the steps can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to collect and analyze data about the potential merge gaps along the road to determine an adequate merging plan for the vehicle to follow in order to feasibly merge with traffic at a particular point on the road.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claims, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 claims do contain the additional elements of a controller and a sensor. However, each of the additional elements are claimed at such a high generality that they merely function as tools to apply the abstract idea, or more particularly, as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The courts have determined 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 do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For at least the reasons above, the additional elements, in combination with the abstract idea of itself, are not integrated into a practical application.
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 technological field. 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.
For at least the reasons above, the additional elements, in combination with the abstract idea of itself, are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements, considered both individually or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-11, 12-15, and 17-20 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and convention additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under §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 –
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Das Gupta et al. US 2021/0089041 (“Das Gupta”).
As to claims 1, 12, and 16, Das Gupta discloses a vehicle system and method comprising:
a sensor configured to collect data associated with a merge scenario, wherein the data includes data associated with at least one traffic vehicle (see at least [0054]: The perception system 602 includes one or more sensors, such as imagers, LIDAR, RADAR, etc., to capture information regarding objects in a field of view of the autonomous vehicle 102. For example, the perception system 602 may capture traffic flow data for the flow of traffic 108, including a location of and motion information regarding the vehicles within the flow of traffic 108, such as the vehicles 110-114. The perception system 602 may further capture information to define the interaction zone 116, as well as measuring, tracking, and/or estimating an actual distance of the autonomous vehicle 102 to the interaction zone 116. In one implementation, the perception system 602 senses point cloud data, which is utilized for determining a location, velocity, acceleration, and other motion of the vehicles 110-114. The perception system 602 may further utilize localization systems and methods to determine vehicle location and movement); and
a controller comprising at least one memory configured to store program instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the program instructions (see at least [0054]: The motion control system 604 may include one or more computing units, such as CPU(s), GPU(s), etc., to generate a motion plan for the autonomous vehicle 102 at a planning cycle and hedging for a primary option and an alternative option for as long as possible, as described herein. The motion control system 604 generates vehicle subsystems data for controlling the autonomous vehicle 102 with the vehicle subsystems 606 according to the motion plan), wherein the controller is programmed to:
execute a first planning methodology, using data received from the sensor, to determine if there is at least one kinematically feasible merge gap defined by at least one traffic vehicle (see at least Fig 11, element 810; [0061]: An operation 810 generates a motion plan for directing the autonomous vehicle into the flow of traffic at the interaction zone. The motion plan includes a first velocity profile for entering the interaction zone at a first gap between the non-yielding agent); and
if the controller determines that there is at least one kinematically feasible merge gap, then the controller:
identifies a target merge gap that includes one of the at least one determined kinematically feasible merge gap, and determines a merge plan for merging with the target merge gap (see at least Fig 11; [0061]: An operation 812 hedges to enter the interaction zone at the first gap while maintaining an option of entering the interaction zone at the second gap based on the motion plan); and
if the controller determines that there is not at least one feasible merge gap, the controller compares the data to a switch criterion to determine if a second planning methodology is required (see at least [0062]: the operation 812 includes hedging to stop followed by trivially entering the second gap and/or hedging to go behind the yielding agent at the second gap. In another implementation, where the third vehicle is designated as a second yielding agent, the second gap is between the first yielding agent and the second yielding agent. In this case, the second velocity profile corresponds to a minimum distance the autonomous vehicle can cover by a time of arrival of the first yielding agent at the interaction zone plus a buffer, while moving at a minimum velocity within constraints imposed by the second yielding agent).
As to claims 2, 13, and 17, Das Gupta discloses wherein: if the switch criterion is satisfied, the controller executes the second planning methodology using received data to identify a target merge gap; and if the switch criterion is not satisfied, the controller re-executes the first planning methodology (see at least [0062]: the operation 812 includes hedging to stop followed by trivially entering the second gap and/or hedging to go behind the yielding agent at the second gap. In another implementation, where the third vehicle is designated as a second yielding agent, the second gap is between the first yielding agent and the second yielding agent. In this case, the second velocity profile corresponds to a minimum distance the autonomous vehicle can cover by a time of arrival of the first yielding agent at the interaction zone plus a buffer, while moving at a minimum velocity within constraints imposed by the second yielding agent).
As to claims 3, 14, and 18, Das Gupta discloses wherein if the controller determines that there is not at least one feasible merge gap and the controller determines that the switch criterion is not satisfied, the controller is further programmed to execute a negotiation methodology to negotiate with at least one traffic vehicle to generate a kinematically feasible merge gap (see at least [0022]-[0026]: the autonomous vehicle 102 designates the first vehicle 110 a non-yielding agent and each of the second vehicle 112 and the third vehicle 114 as yielding agents. The autonomous vehicle 102 may designate vehicles as non-yielding agents or yielding agents based on vehicle velocity, vehicle position relative to the interaction zone 116, vehicle acceleration, vehicle behavior profile, motion constraints of the autonomous vehicle 102, and/or the like.).
As to claims 4, 15, and 19, Das Gupta discloses wherein the controller compares data to a switch criterion that includes at least one of a length of remaining merge lane length, a normalized distance traveled on a merge lane, a merge lane geometry, a number of traffic vehicles, speed(s) of traffic vehicles, a gap(s) distances, and a traffic density (see at least [0026]: The autonomous vehicle 102 may designate vehicles as non-yielding agents or yielding agents based on vehicle velocity, vehicle position relative to the interaction zone 116, vehicle acceleration, vehicle behavior profile, motion constraints of the autonomous vehicle 102, and/or the like).
As to claims 5 and 20, Das Gupta discloses wherein the controller is programmed to determine the merge plan including at least one of a merge trajectory, a merge velocity, and a merge acceleration/deceleration (see at least [0026]: The autonomous vehicle 102 may designate vehicles as non-yielding agents or yielding agents based on vehicle velocity, vehicle position relative to the interaction zone 116, vehicle acceleration, vehicle behavior profile, motion constraints of the autonomous vehicle 102, and/or the like).
As to claim 6, Das Gupta discloses wherein the controller is further programmed to select the target merge gap from a plurality of kinematically feasible merge gaps by determining a merge efficiency for each of the plurality of kinematically feasible merge gaps (see at least [0027]: the autonomous vehicle 102 generates the first motion plan for the autonomous vehicle 102 to enter the interaction zone 116 at the first gap 118 as a primary gap. In connection with the first motion plan, the autonomous vehicle 102 determines whether the first gap 118 exceeds an initial confidence threshold).
As to claim 7, Das Gupta discloses wherein the controller determines at least one control signal for controlling operation of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to execute the merge plan (see at least [0054]: The motion control system 604 may include one or more computing units, such as CPU(s), GPU(s), etc., to generate a motion plan for the autonomous vehicle 102 at a planning cycle and hedging for a primary option and an alternative option for as long as possible, as described herein. The motion control system 604 generates vehicle subsystems data for controlling the autonomous vehicle 102 with the vehicle subsystems 606 according to the motion plan).
As to claim 8¸Das Gupta discloses wherein the sensor is at least one of a video device, an imaging device, and a camera (see at least [0054]: The perception system 602 includes one or more sensors, such as imagers, LIDAR, RADAR, etc., to capture information regarding objects in a field of view of the autonomous vehicle 102. For example, the perception system 602 may capture traffic flow data for the flow of traffic 108, including a location of and motion information regarding the vehicles within the flow of traffic 108, such as the vehicles 110-114. The perception system 602 may further capture information to define the interaction zone 116, as well as measuring, tracking, and/or estimating an actual distance of the autonomous vehicle 102 to the interaction zone 116. In one implementation, the perception system 602 senses point cloud data, which is utilized for determining a location, velocity, acceleration, and other motion of the vehicles 110-114. The perception system 602 may further utilize localization systems and methods to determine vehicle location and movement).
As to claim 9, Das Gupta discloses wherein the sensor is at least one of a radar, a proximity sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, a wide RADAR, a long- distance RADAR, a Global Positioning System (GPS), a video device, an imaging device, a camera, an audio recorder, and a computer vision (see at least [0054]: The perception system 602 includes one or more sensors, such as imagers, LIDAR, RADAR, etc., to capture information regarding objects in a field of view of the autonomous vehicle 102. For example, the perception system 602 may capture traffic flow data for the flow of traffic 108, including a location of and motion information regarding the vehicles within the flow of traffic 108, such as the vehicles 110-114. The perception system 602 may further capture information to define the interaction zone 116, as well as measuring, tracking, and/or estimating an actual distance of the autonomous vehicle 102 to the interaction zone 116. In one implementation, the perception system 602 senses point cloud data, which is utilized for determining a location, velocity, acceleration, and other motion of the vehicles 110-114. The perception system 602 may further utilize localization systems and methods to determine vehicle location and movement).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P INGRAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/Thomas Ingram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
