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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding to independent claims 1, 11, and 16. The underlined limitation is not supported by the original specification: “… providing, by the computing system based on the frequencies or the exposure rates, vehicle operational instructions to avoid a road segment associated with a likelihood of encountering a scenario determined to be risky or modify operation to reduce risk…”
A likelihood is understood as a probability
[0030] “… In some embodiments, each family of scenarios associated with the first histogram 344 can be associated with a risk profile representing a level of risk posed by the family of scenarios. In such embodiments, a threshold similarity between the first histogram 344 and the second histogram 346 can indicate that vehicles navigating the first and second environments encounter a similar level of risk. In some embodiments, the application module 210 can route vehicles navigating an environment based on a level of difficulty or risk associated with the environment. For example, FIGURE 3I illustrates a map 350 of a geographic region. The map 350 can associate various portions of the geographic region with scenario information based on the types of scenarios that were encountered by vehicles while navigating those portions of the map 350. For example, the map 350 associates a first histogram 352 of scenarios with a first road segment 354 and a second histogram 356 of scenarios with a second road segment 358. In some embodiments, the map 350 can associate respective difficulty and risk profiles with the first road segment 354 and the second road segment 358. In the example of FIGURE 3I, the first road segment 354 may be associated with a high level of risk to pedestrians while the second road segment 358 may be associated with a lower level of risk to pedestrians. In this example, a vehicle driving on the first road segment 354 may be re-routed to use the second road segment 358 to reduce risk to pedestrians. Many variations are possible. In some embodiments, difficulty and risk profiles can be used as a basis for modifying vehicle operation (or behavior). For example, the first road segment 354 and the second road segment 358 may be associated with similar levels of risk to pedestrians. In this example, a vehicle driving on the first road segment 354 may be instructed to continue driving on the first road segment 354 while modifying its operation based on a level of difficulty or risk associated with the first road segment 354. For example, the vehicle may be instructed to increase or decrease its speed, change its direction of travel, change lanes, activate hazard lights, or activate fog lights, to name some examples. Again, many variations are possible.
Dependent claims are failing to cure deficiencies. The dependent claims are rejected based on the same reason.
Claim 8: “… wherein providing the vehicle operational instructions comprises, by an application module executing on a vehicle: reducing a speed setpoint of the vehicle and increasing a minimum following distance on a road segment identified as having a higher likelihood of a scenario, or routing the vehicle to avoid the road segment whose exposure rate for a scenario exceeds a threshold…”
Claim 10: “… selecting a route that avoids the road segment whose exposure rate for a scenario exceeds a threshold and causing the vehicle to follow the selected route, reducing a speed setpoint on a road segment identified as having a higher likelihood of a scenario, or increasing a minimum following distance on a road segment identified as having a higher likelihood of a scenario…”
The underlined phrases are not supported by the specification
[0022]”… Such scenarios can be taken into consideration when routing vehicles to reduce risk and improve safety, for example, by either avoiding road segments that pose a high level of risk of encountering certain types of objects (e.g., animals, debris, etc.) or by modifying operation of the vehicles when navigating high risk road segments (e.g., reducing speed, increasing distance between objects, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding to claim 1-10
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, sensor data captured by at least one sensor of a vehicle while the vehicle navigates an environment over a period of time comprising a plurality of time intervals;
for each time interval in the plurality of time intervals:
b1) determining, by the computing system, information describing one or more agents in the environment during the time interval based at least in part on the sensor data; and
b2) generating, by the computing system, a schema-based encoding based on the determined information and a scenario schema, wherein the scenario schema comprises a set of elements including an agent element and an action element;
generating, by the computing system, a time-based representation of the environment by associating the schema-based encodings corresponding to the plurality of time intervals in temporal order with a point-in-time encoding of the environment generated for a point in time;
computing, by the computing system based on a plurality of the time-based representations of the environment, frequencies of scenarios experienced by vehicles while navigating the environment and determining exposure rates of the scenarios based on the frequencies; and
providing, by the computing system based on the frequencies or the exposure rates, vehicle operational instructions to avoid a road segment associated with a likelihood of encountering a scenario determined to be risky or modify operation to reduce risk.
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including steps a) - e). Thus, the claim is to a method/process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Steps b) for each time interval in the plurality of time intervals; b1) determining, by the computing system, information describing one or more agents in the environment during the time interval based at least in part on the sensor data; and b2) generating, by the computing system, a schema-based encoding based on the determined information and a scenario schema, wherein the scenario schema comprises a set of elements including an agent element and an action element. The steps b), b1), and b2) can be performed in human mind. For instance, a person can analyze and identify agents (e.g., pedestrian, object, car, vehicle, and so on) in the environment during time interval. Further, generating schema-based encoding based on observation and scenario schema is nothing more organize agents along with agent information (i.e., actions) into log records. Steps b), b1), and b2) are nothing more than an observation, evaluation, or judgment (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
Step c) generating, by the computing system, a time-based representation of the environment by associating the schema-based encodings corresponding to the plurality of time intervals in temporal order with a point-in-time encoding of the environment generated for a point in time. This step simply organizes data (schema-based encoding) in a time-based representation. This step is an observation, evaluation, or judgment (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
Step d) computing, by the computing system based on a plurality of the time-based representations of the environment, frequencies of scenarios experienced by vehicles while navigating the environment and determining exposure rates of the scenarios based on the frequencies. Given broadest reasonable interpretation, step d) involves calculating frequencies of scenarios and exposure rates that are mathematical processes (i.e., mathematical concept [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
Step e) providing, by the computing system based on the frequencies or the exposure rates, vehicle operational instructions to avoid a road segment associated with a likelihood of encountering a scenario determined to be risky or modify operation to reduce risk. Step e) is advisory is given based on evaluations that environment posing risk to operators. This step is an observation, evaluation, or judgment (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps b, c, and e fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas and step d falls within the mathematical process grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations b), b1), b2), c), d), and e) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations
receiving, by a computing system, sensor data captured by at least one sensor of a vehicle while the vehicle navigates an environment over a period of time comprising a plurality of time intervals;
a) MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
There is no improvement to Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field. The limitation a) is simply collecting data. These limitation does not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as “computer system”, “sensor”, and “vehicle.” Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim operates to collecting data as in step a). The step is not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The limitations a) collecting data is not meaningful limitations because collecting data is pre and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations a) collecting data is not meaningful limitation because collecting data is pre and post-solution activities.
f) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Computer system”, “sensor”, and “vehicle.” limitations are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitation a) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any non-convention or non-generic arrangement because collecting data, ranking collected data, and displaying the results are all conventional activities. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “wherein the scenario schema further comprises a metadata element representing roadway attributes of the environment, comprising at least one of roadway type, speed limits, number of lanes, locations of intersections, merging lanes, traffic signals and states, street signs, curbs, presence of bicycle lanes, presence of crosswalks, or whether a road segment is in a residential, school, business, mixed-use, high-density, or rural zone.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 recites “wherein the scenario schema further comprises a metadata element representing contextual information of the environment, comprising a calendar date, a day of week, a time of day, and weather conditions encountered while the vehicle navigates the environment.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 recites “wherein determining the information describing the one or more agents in the environment during the time interval comprises: determining action or motion information comprising at least one of a velocity, a direction of travel, distances between the one or more agents, locations of the one or more agents relative to the vehicle, or locations of the one or more agents relative to other agents. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Claim 5 recites “overlaying locations of the one or more agents on a semantic map of the environment to determine whether a given agent is on a sidewalk, in a bicycle lane, or in a particular lane of a road.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 6 recites “wherein the time-based representation spans the period of time and identifies, for a given agent, different actions across sub-intervals within the period of time.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 7 recites “reconstructing a scene of the environment from the sensor data by generating the scene from a single camera capture over time as the vehicle navigates the environment.” This limitation is pre-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 8 recites “wherein providing the vehicle operational instructions comprises, by an application module executing on a vehicle: reducing a speed setpoint of the vehicle and increasing a minimum following distance on a road segment identified as having a higher likelihood of a scenario, or routing the vehicle to avoid the road segment whose exposure rate for a scenario exceeds a threshold.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 9 recites “wherein the environment comprises at least one of a geographic location, a geographic region, a city, or a state, and computing the frequencies of scenarios comprises: generating respective histograms for the scenarios for each such environment and determining exposure rates of the scenarios for each such environment.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 10 recites “wherein providing the vehicle operational instructions based on the frequencies or the exposure rates comprises: selecting a route that avoids the road segment whose exposure rate for a scenario exceeds a threshold and causing the vehicle to follow the selected route, reducing a speed setpoint on a road segment identified as having a higher likelihood of a scenario, or increasing a minimum following distance on a road segment identified as having a higher likelihood of a scenario” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11-20 are similar to claim 1-4 and 10. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154