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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on April 03, 2025. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process and a machine. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of determining whether a traffic in the target lane becomes string unstable in response to an ego vehicle moving to the target lane based on learned car-following models and the traffic data; identifying a connected vehicle in the target lane in response to determining that the traffic in the target lane becomes string unstable in response to an ego vehicle moving to the target lane; and generating a suggested speed profile for the identified connected vehicle based on the traffic data and the learned car-following models as recited in independent claim 1.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “obtaining traffic data from a target lane” are also insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the limitation “requesting that the identified connected vehicle drive based on the suggested speed profile” merely uses generic computing components (“system”) but also constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as “system” and “processor” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
As for dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.
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 8-14 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: network interface hardware 216. The Specification, ¶ [0041] states "Still referring to FIG. 2, the ego vehicle system 200 comprises network interface hardware 216 for communicatively coupling the ego vehicle system 200 to the connected vehicle system 220." The examiner believes that the states processor alone would not be capable of identifying a connected vehicle in the target lane and requesting that the identified connected vehicle change lanes. Therefore, the additional elements are deemed essential.
Claims 9-14 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasamy et al., US 10,089,876 B1 in view of Wang et al., US 2019/0051159 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ramasamy teaches a method for controlling longitudinal movements of vehicles, the method comprising:
obtaining traffic data from a target lane; (Ramasamy, see at least col. 4 In. 35-57 "As shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle 200 may be equipped with one or more sensors 230, 240 of the same or different types. In some examples, sensors 240 may comprise proximity sensors configured to detect other vehicles within a reference range of the vehicle, or to detect a range to a detected vehicle. Some example sensors may include image sensors, ultrasound range sensors, laser range sensors, LIDAR, radar, or other suitable proximity sensors, which can be means for determining a distance between a first and a second vehicle, a means for identifying a vehicle in a lane of travel, or a means for identifying a travelling order of two or more vehicles. Image or light sensors, including one or more cameras, may be employed to detect signals from other vehicles, such as turn signals, brake lights, headlights, hand or arm signals, etc. One or more sensors 230, 240 may be affixed to the vehicle, such as on the front, sides, and rear of the vehicle 200. In some examples, an omnidirectional sensor, such as a LIDAR or radar system, may be affixed to the roof of the vehicle 200. Such sensors can serve as a means for detecting
determining whether a traffic in the target lane becomes string unstable in response to an ego vehicle moving to the target lane based on learned car-following models and the traffic data; (Ramasamy, see at least Background "Similarly, autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles may be able to identify gaps between cars in an adjacent lane and perform a merge. However, if and no such gap exists, the vehicle or driver must either wait for a suitable gap to appear or adjust their speed to move into a gap ahead or behind the cars in the adjacent lane." It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Ramasamy intended to mimic human driving behavior which entails determining if changing lanes to a target lane will cause an unsafe slowdown in the target lane so as not to unsafely impede traffic or the flow of traffic. Therefore, Ramasamy would not have programmed the disclosed vehicle to arbitrarily change lanes without utilizing sensor data to determine a safe lane change and not disrupt traffic in the target lane.”)
identifying a connected vehicle in the target lane in response to determining that the traffic in the target lane becomes string unstable in response to an ego vehicle moving to the target lane; (Ramasamy, see at least col. 21 In. 10-29 "At block 910, a requesting vehicle transmits a lane change request using an RF transmitter. As discussed above with respect to block 510 of the method 500 shown in FIG. 5, a lane change request may include a wide variety of information according to different examples. At block 920, the requesting vehicle receives a response from one or more responding vehicles. As discussed above, a response may include a denial of the request. If the request was denied, the requesting vehicle may wait a timeout period before transmitting a new request. In some examples, the requesting vehicle may transmit a request to identify other nearby vehicles. If the same, or some of the same vehicles, remain near the requesting vehicle, it may delay transmitting a further lane change request as it may determine that the scenario has not yet changed sufficiently to allow for a lane change. However, if the requesting vehicle detects new vehicles, or a majority of the responding vehicles were not vehicles in its vicinity when the last lane change request was denied, the requesting vehicle may transmit a new lane change request." and Fig. 9) and
requesting that the identified connected vehicle drive based on the suggested speed profile. (Ramasamy, see at least col. 21 In. 10-29 "At block 910, a requesting vehicle transmits a lane change request using an RF transmitter. As discussed above with respect to block 510 of the method 500 shown in FIG. 5, a lane change request may include a wide variety of information according to different examples. At block 920, the requesting vehicle receives a response from one or more responding vehicles. As discussed above, a response may include a denial of the request. If the request was denied, the requesting vehicle may wait a timeout period before transmitting a new request. In some examples, the requesting vehicle may transmit a request to identify other nearby vehicles. If the same, or some of the same vehicles, remain near the requesting vehicle, it may delay transmitting a further lane change request as it may determine that the scenario has not yet changed sufficiently to allow for a lane change. However, if the requesting vehicle detects new vehicles, or a majority of the responding vehicles were not vehicles in its vicinity when the last lane change request was denied, the requesting vehicle may transmit a new lane change request." and Fig. 9)
Ramasamy does not specifically teach the following. However, Wang teaches
generating a suggested speed profile for the identified connected vehicle based on the traffic data and the learned car-following models; (Wang, see at least ¶ [0007] “In any of the disclosed embodiments, automatically detecting that the given autonomous vehicle is in the deadlock condition may include obtaining, by each of the autonomous vehicles using vehicle-to-vehicle communication, respective vehicle information from one or more other autonomous vehicles within communication range including, for each of the other autonomous vehicles, a current speed of the other autonomous vehicle, the respective maximum speed of the other autonomous vehicle, a direction in which the other autonomous vehicle is traveling, and a current position of the other autonomous vehicle. The method may also include determining, dependent on the respective vehicle information obtained from the one or more other autonomous vehicles, that the given autonomous vehicle is in the deadlock condition.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Ramasamy with those of Wang as both relate to coordinated driving among a group of vehicles to improve safety. (Wang, ¶ [0002] “systems and methods for cooperative autonomous driving for traffic congestion avoidance through vehicle-to-vehicle communications.”) In addition, this would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Ramasamy teaches a method for controlling longitudinal movements of vehicles. Ramasamy does not specifically teach the following. However, Wang teaches wherein the identified connected vehicle follows the suggested speed profile to create a first empty space between the identified connected vehicle and a vehicle in front of the identified connected vehicle in the target lane. (Wang, see at least ¶ [0119] “FIG. 10C illustrates that, subsequent to the formation of coordination group 1020, the autonomous vehicles in coordination group 1020 begin to take cooperative actions to resolve the deadlock condition, including autonomous vehicle 1012 changing lanes to allow autonomous vehicle 1010 to escape the deadlock condition. Specifically, FIG. 10C illustrates that autonomous vehicle 1014 reduces its speed to create a gap into which autonomous vehicle 1012 can change lanes, after which autonomous vehicle 1012 begins moving into the target lane.”) (see claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.)
Regarding claim 3, Ramasamy teaches a method for controlling longitudinal movements of vehicles. Ramasamy does not specifically teach the following. However, Wang teaches instructing the ego vehicle to enter into a second empty space in the target lane by changing lanes from a current lane to the target lane. (Wang, see at least ¶ [0119] “FIG. 10C illustrates that, subsequent to the formation of coordination group 1020, the autonomous vehicles in coordination group 1020 begin to take cooperative actions to resolve the deadlock condition, including autonomous vehicle 1012 changing lanes to allow autonomous vehicle 1010 to escape the deadlock condition. Specifically, FIG. 10C illustrates that autonomous vehicle 1014 reduces its speed to create a gap into which autonomous vehicle 1012 can change lanes, after which autonomous vehicle 1012 begins moving into the target lane.”) (see claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.)
Regarding claim 4, Ramasamy teaches a method for controlling longitudinal movements of vehicles. Ramasamy does not specifically teach the following. However, Wang teaches wherein the first empty space is further away from the ego vehicle than the second empty space. (Wang, see at least ¶ [0119] “FIG. 10C illustrates that, subsequent to the formation of coordination group 1020, the autonomous vehicles in coordination group 1020 begin to take cooperative actions to resolve the deadlock condition, including autonomous vehicle 1012 changing lanes to allow autonomous vehicle 1010 to escape the deadlock condition. Specifically, FIG. 10C illustrates that autonomous vehicle 1014 reduces its speed to create a gap into which autonomous vehicle 1012 can change lanes, after which autonomous vehicle 1012 begins moving into the target lane.”) (see claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.)
Regarding claim 5, Ramasamy teaches a method for controlling longitudinal movements of vehicles. Ramasamy does not specifically teach the following. However, Wang teaches instructing other connected vehicles in the target lane to transmit state data to the identified connected vehicle. (Wang, see at least ¶ [0140] “The systems and methods described herein may address the problem of cooperative driving for connected autonomous vehicles to avoid traffic congestion. As described herein, to avoid traffic congestion, autonomous vehicles may be provided with intelligence to determine certain optimal driving strategies including timing of acceleration and deceleration, and how to execute a lane change. The connected autonomous vehicles may communicate with each other through vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication to detect and collect surrounding vehicle information. This information may be stored by the autonomous vehicles and used to identify deadlock conditions that cause traffic slow down, and to determine multi-vehicle cooperative driving tasks to be performed to resolve deadlocks and improve overall traffic flow. The formation of coordination groups of connected autonomous vehicles and subsequent performance of cooperative driving strategies by the autonomous vehicles in the coordination groups may be realized through the exchange of messages, which may provide more control possibilities than the Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM) approach used in a traditional vehicular adaptive cruise control system. By exchanging vehicle information as well as driving intentions, the connected autonomous vehicles in a coordination group may be able to prevent, reduce, or resolve traffic congestion conditions through effective cooperative driving strategies”) (see claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.)
Regarding claim 6, Ramasamy teaches a method for controlling longitudinal movements of vehicles. Ramasamy does not specifically teach the following. However, Wang teaches wherein the state data includes speed or acceleration oscillations of the other connected vehicles in the target lane. (Wang, see at least ¶ [0140] “The systems and methods described herein may address the problem of cooperative driving for connected autonomous vehicles to avoid traffic congestion. As described herein, to avoid traffic congestion, autonomous vehicles may be provided with intelligence to determine certain optimal driving strategies including timing of acceleration and deceleration, and how to execute a lane change. The connected autonomous vehicles may communicate with each other through vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication to detect and collect surrounding vehicle information. This information may be stored by the autonomous vehicles and used to identify deadlock conditions that cause traffic slow down, and to determine multi-vehicle cooperative driving tasks to be performed to resolve deadlocks and improve overall traffic flow. The formation of coordination groups of connected autonomous vehicles and subsequent performance of cooperative driving strategies by the autonomous vehicles in the coordination groups may be realized through the exchange of messages, which may provide more control possibilities than the Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM) approach used in a traditional vehicular adaptive cruise control system. By exchanging vehicle information as well as driving intentions, the connected autonomous vehicles in a coordination group may be able to prevent, reduce, or resolve traffic congestion conditions through effective cooperative driving strategies”) (see claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.)
Regarding claim 7, Ramasamy teaches a method for controlling longitudinal movements of vehicles. Ramasamy does not specifically teach the following. However, Wang teaches receiving a decline from the identified connected vehicle in the target lane; identifying another connected vehicle in the target lane; generating a suggested speed profile for the identified another connected vehicle based on the traffic data and the learned car-following models; and requesting that the identified another connected vehicle drive based on the suggested speed profile for the identified another connected vehicle. (Wang, see at least ¶ [0140] “The systems and methods described herein may address the problem of cooperative driving for connected autonomous vehicles to avoid traffic congestion. As described herein, to avoid traffic congestion, autonomous vehicles may be provided with intelligence to determine certain optimal driving strategies including timing of acceleration and deceleration, and how to execute a lane change. The connected autonomous vehicles may communicate with each other through vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication to detect and collect surrounding vehicle information. This information may be stored by the autonomous vehicles and used to identify deadlock conditions that cause traffic slow down, and to determine multi-vehicle cooperative driving tasks to be performed to resolve deadlocks and improve overall traffic flow. The formation of coordination groups of connected autonomous vehicles and subsequent performance of cooperative driving strategies by the autonomous vehicles in the coordination groups may be realized through the exchange of messages, which may provide more control possibilities than the Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM) approach used in a traditional vehicular adaptive cruise control system. By exchanging vehicle information as well as driving intentions, the connected autonomous vehicles in a coordination group may be able to prevent, reduce, or resolve traffic congestion conditions through effective cooperative driving strategies”) (see claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.)
Claim 8 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim 10 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claim 11 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim 12 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim 13 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claim 14 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights