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 .
Drawing Objections
Fig. 1 of the drawings is objected to as it uses a scheme where numbers are inserted into the drawings to represent items instead of descriptive labels. This makes the drawings useless without a key, a legend, or a specification. The drawings submitted with a patent application are supposed to help describe and set the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and when the meaning of the drawings cannot be easily or clearly derived without a specification, key, or legend, the value of the drawings and use is diminished.
Please use descriptive worded labels next to the element numbers or inside the boxes, especially where the drawing element cannot be easily understandable. Proper action is requested.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, “The method (200) of claim 11” should read “The method of claim 11”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-18 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.
Regarding claim 13, “the group” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the group” to mean any group.
Regarding claim 14, “the left or right” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the left or right” to mean a left or right.
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 17, “the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the vehicle” to mean any vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites “a self-driving vehicle”. It is unclear if “a self-driving vehicle” in claim 18 refers to “self-driving vehicles” in claim 11 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a self-driving vehicle”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a self-driving vehicle” in claim 18 to mean any self-driving vehicle.
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 11-15 and 17-20 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 11 recites:
“A method for route planning for self-driving vehicles, comprising:
determining a lane-accurate route from a starting point to a destination using lane- accurate map data, wherein determining the lane-accurate route comprises:
ascertaining, for a plurality of route sections between the starting point and the destination, lanes of the plurality of route sections which are suitable for automated driving, and
determining the lane-accurate route in consideration of the lanes of the plurality of route sections which are suitable for automated driving so as to maximize a time and/or a distance on the lane-accurate route for automated driving”.
The limitations of determining a lane-accurate route and ascertaining lanes, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the determining and ascertaining from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the determining a lane-accurate route and ascertaining lanes in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of looking outside a vehicle or looking at a map and determining whether the lanes are suitable for automated driving in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of determining the lane-accurate route to maximize a time and/or a distance on the lane-accurate route for automated driving, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the determining from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user thinking and determining a lane-accurate route to maximize a time and/or distance for automated driving in his mind. Thus, these limitations are also mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites performing determining and ascertaining. The self-driving vehicle in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining and ascertaining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of vehicles to perform determining and ascertaining, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-15 and 17-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a non-transitory computer readable medium, a processor, a memory, and a motor vehicle, which amount to generic computer components. The claim additionally recites “outputting a driver notification”. This additional task is an extra-solution activity in the form of displaying/outputting data. Displaying data using known techniques does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Electric Power Group LLC. v. Alstom, S.A, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 11.
Also, please note claim 16 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it recites a practical application of carrying out lane-accurate automated driving based on the surroundings data.
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 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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kutila (US 20190294167 A1).
Claim 11
Kutila teaches:
A method for route planning for self-driving vehicles, comprising (Kutila – Abstract) “determine an optimal lane trajectory and route for an autonomous vehicle”
Determining a lane-accurate route from a starting point to a destination using lane- accurate map data, wherein determining the lane-accurate route comprises (Kutila - Paragraph 0055, Fig. 8) “FIG. 8 shows route selection based on availability of dynamic lanes and ruts information”
ascertaining, for a plurality of route sections between the starting point and the destination, lanes of the plurality of route sections which are suitable for automated driving (Kutila - Paragraph 0041, 0055, 0077-0079, Figs. 8, 12, 13) “request lane information to determine if an obstacle is blocking a lane… If the obstacle is not larger than a threshold 1604, the vehicle moves to manual mode 1608”
and determining the lane-accurate route in consideration of the lanes of the plurality of route sections which are suitable for automated driving (Kutila - Paragraphs 0055, 0077-0079, 0092, Figs. 8, 12, 13) “request lane information to determine if an obstacle is blocking a lane… If the obstacle is not larger than a threshold 1604, the vehicle moves to manual mode 1608”
so as to maximize a time and/or a distance on the lane-accurate route for automated driving (Kutila - Abstract, Paragraph 0098-0100) “select optimal routes for autonomous vehicles and to maximize the automated driving percentage”
Claim 12
Kutila teaches:
lanes which are suitable for automated driving are ascertained based on a functional embodiment of a driver assistance system for automated driving (Kutila - Paragraph 0041, 0055, 0077-0079, Figs. 8, 12, 13) “a vehicle to request lane information to determine if an obstacle is blocking a lane… If the obstacle is not larger than a threshold 1604, the vehicle moves to manual mode 1608”
Claim 13
Kutila teaches:
the lane-accurate map data comprise one or more lane-accurate attributes, wherein the one or more lane-accurate attributes are selected from the group consisting of lane types, lane widths, lane markings, roadway surfaces, curve radii, and construction sites (Kutila - Paragraphs 0055, 0097-0099, Fig. 8) “Thick, solid lines next to a construction symbol 1110 shows locations where there is construction causing a partial lane closure. Routes marked with plus signs 1112 show locations where snow is covering the lanes causing a partial lane closure”
and wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on the one or more lane- accurate attributes, the lanes suitable for automated driving (Kutila - Paragraphs 0055, 0077-0079, 0092, Figs. 8, 12, 13) “a partially blocked lane or road due to snow covered roads… If clearance information is available, the second vehicle 1514 follows a trajectory 1518 communicated to the second vehicle 1514 by the cloud server 1506”
Claim 14
Kutila teaches:
the determined lane-accurate route comprises geo-positions (Kutila - Paragraph 0082) “The location of ruts 1806 may be measured by calculating a mean of the rut distances (rut centerline 1808) from the lane centerline 1812”
wherein the geo-positions specify a center of at least one lane suitable for automated driving on the lane-accurate route or deviate to the left or right from the center (Kutila - Paragraph 0082) “The location of ruts 1806 may be measured by calculating a mean of the rut distances (rut centerline 1808) from the lane centerline 1812”
Claim 15
Kutila teaches:
determining at least one lane change necessary so that the vehicle travels in the lanes suitable for automated driving along the lane-accurate route (Kutila - Paragraphs 0077-0079, Fig. 12) “If clearance information is available, the second vehicle 1514 follows a trajectory 1518 communicated to the second vehicle 1514 by the cloud server 1506”
And carrying out the at least one lane change in an automated manner by way of the self- driving vehicle; or outputting a driver notification to a driver of the vehicle to manually carry out the at least one lane change by way of the driver (Kutila - Paragraphs 0077-0079, Fig. 12) “If clearance information is available, the second vehicle 1514 follows a trajectory 1518 communicated to the second vehicle 1514 by the cloud server 1506. If the cloud server 1506 does not have information for the disrupted segment, the second vehicle 1514 may indicate to the user to move to manual mode”
Claim 16
Kutila teaches:
acquiring, via a surroundings sensor system of the vehicle, surroundings data (Kutila - Paragraphs 0077-0079, Fig. 12) “When a second vehicle 1514 approaches a road segment and determines that an obstacle 1516 is in the road using a perception sensor”
and carrying out lane-accurate automated driving along the lane-accurate route based on the surroundings data (Kutila - Paragraphs 0077-0079, Fig. 12) “If clearance information is available, the second vehicle 1514 follows a trajectory 1518 communicated to the second vehicle 1514 by the cloud server 1506”
Claim 17
Kutila teaches:
actuating the self-driving vehicle such that the vehicle follows the lane-accurate route (Kutila - Paragraphs 0077-0079, Fig. 12) “If clearance information is available, the second vehicle 1514 follows a trajectory 1518 communicated to the second vehicle 1514 by the cloud server 1506”
Claim 18
Kutila teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processer causes a self-driving vehicle to carry out the method of claim 11 (Kutila - Paragraph 0140-0141, 0151, Claim 14) “A system for navigating an autonomous vehicle having at least a first type of environment perception sensor, the system comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions operative when executed on the processor to perform functions comprising”
Claim 19
Kutila teaches:
A system for route planning for self-driving vehicles, comprising: one or more processors; and at least one memory connected to the one or more processors and storing processor executable instructions to carry out the method of claim 11 (Kutila - Paragraph 0140-0141, 0151, Claim 14) “A system for navigating an autonomous vehicle having at least a first type of environment perception sensor, the system comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions operative when executed on the processor to perform functions comprising”
Claim 20
Kutila teaches:
A motor vehicle comprising the system of claim 19 (Kutila - Paragraph 0140-0141, 0151, Claim 14) “Embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented using the processor and other functionality of a WTRU (Wireless Transmitter Receiver Unit) connected to or implemented in an autonomous vehicle”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:30-6:30 EST.
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 Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights