CTNF 19/214,853 CTNF 84521 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. 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: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 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 1 recites: A processing system that executes a process related to driving of a vehicle, the processing system comprising: a plurality of individual evaluation units configured to output individual evaluation results related to a strategic guideline based on sensor data, in which at least some of output sources of the sensor data are different from each other; an integration evaluation unit configured to integrate each of the individual evaluation results , and output an evaluation result after integration; and a driving planning unit configured to plan a driving action based on the evaluation result after the integration . The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “integrating… and planning a driving action” limitations encompasses a user or driver evaluate the results based on the sensors outputs, and making observation, evaluation or judgement about the course of driving action. 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, integrates the abstract 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”): A processing system that executes a process related to driving of a vehicle, the processing system comprising : a plurality of individual evaluation units configured to output individual evaluation results related to a strategic guideline based on sensor data, in which at least some of output sources of the sensor data are different from each other ; an integration evaluation unit configured to integrate each of the individual evaluation results , and output an evaluation result after integration; and a driving planning unit configured to plan a driving action based on the evaluation result after the integration . 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 “output individual evaluation results… and output an evaluation result after integration.” the examiner submits that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering information for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution transmitting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processing system, evaluation units, integration unit.. driving planning unit” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. 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. 101 Analysis – Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, 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 “outputting information” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-13 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. More specifically, the limitations of generating matrix.., outputting and detecting.., store.. are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the determining steps in the dependent claims constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim]. Therefore, claim(s) 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: evaluation units, integration evaluation unit, driving planning unit in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 5, 8, and 11 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 in claim 5 and 11, “plurality of rules in common to each other…” is not clear as to what is common among the evaluation units. Furthermore, claim 8 recites “ excludeing a part of the plurality of rules includes in the set of rules…” it is unclear what is excluded in the set of rules. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 9, 10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDA (US 20200207362 A1) in view of Dobberphul (US 20240404295 A1) . Regarding claim 1, NISHIDA discloses a processing system that executes a process related to driving of a vehicle ( FIG. 1 ), the processing system comprising: An evaluation unit configured to output individual evaluation results related to a strategic guideline based on sensor data, in which at least some of output sources of the sensor data are different from each other (FIG. 2 show external sensor 3a..3n, FIG. 3, ¶0033, “the environment-dependent performance for each environment of each external sensor is graded into the three categories of A (“Excellent” recognition accuracy), B (“Good” recognition accuracy), and C (“Fair” recognition accuracy. FIG. 3 shows different sensors”); an integration evaluation unit configured to integrate each of the individual evaluation results, and output an evaluation result after integration ( FIG. 1, recognition result fusion unit 23, ¶0053, “The recognition result fusion unit 23 combines (fuses) the recognition results regarding the external environment from the external sensors 3 having different detection areas and detection methods, and generates environment information”); and a driving planning unit configured to plan a driving action based on the evaluation result after the integration ( FIG. 1, vehicle control unit 24, ¶0054, “The vehicle control unit 24 controls travel by selecting an appropriate driving mode from among the driving modes adoptable by the vehicle 2 determined by the driving mode determination unit 1 h based on the external recognition information output by the recognition result fusion unit 23.”). Nishida does not explicitly disclose but, Dobberphul teaches a plurality of individual evaluation units ( claim 11, “detecting classification data of the input data; detecting the current driving situation depending on the classification data; determining a prioritized evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units.”). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Nishida with the individual evaluation units taught in Dobberphul with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted improving safety of a vehicle in a safety-relevant function, in particular by means of improved complexity management in the evaluation of the input data. Regarding claim 9, Nishida discloses wherein data in which an individual evaluation result is associated with the evaluation result after the integration is generated, and stored in a storage medium ( abstract ). Regarding claim 10, Nishida discloses an individual evaluation result is associated with the evaluation result after the integration is generated, and transmitted to an external system existing outside the vehicle through a communication system mounted in the vehicle (FIG. 1). Regarding claim 13, Nishida discloses wherein the driving planning unit derives a provisional driving action, the individual evaluation unit outputs an individual evaluation result related to the strategic guideline for the provisional driving action, the integration evaluation unit integrates each of the individual evaluation results for the provisional driving action and outputs an evaluation result after the integration, and the driving planning unit determines a final driving action by referring to the evaluation result after the integration for the provisional driving action (FIG. 1). Regarding claims 14-15, claims 14-15 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDA (US 20200207362 A1) in view of Dobberphul (US 20240404295 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tebbens (US 20220187837 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Nishida does not explicitly disclose but, Tebbens teaches wherein each of the individual evaluation units outputs a matrix of a violation metric which is an individual evaluation result for a set of rules including a plurality of rules ( FIG. 3, FIG. 6A). Tebbens teaches violation metric ( abstract ). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Nishida with the violation metric taught in Tebbens with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an avoidance trajectories that violate rules by filtering out those candidate trajectories for the driving scenario. Regarding claim 3, Tebbens further teaches wherein the integration evaluation unit generates a matrix of a violation metric after integration based on the matrix of a plurality of violation metrics output from each of the individual evaluation units, and outputs the matrix as the evaluation result after the integration ( abstract). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Nishida with the violation metric taught in Tebbens with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an avoidance trajectories that violate rules by filtering out those candidate trajectories for the driving scenario. Regarding claim 4, NISHIDA discloses wherein an output source of the sensor data in which a failure or erroneous detection occurs is specified based on the matrix of each of the violation metrics ( FIG. 6A). Regarding claim 5, NISHIDA discloses wherein the set of rules is provided in common among the plurality of individual evaluation units, and each of the individual evaluation units evaluates the plurality of rules in common to each other, based on the set of rules ( FIG. 3) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDA (US 20200207362 A1) in view of Dobberphul (US 20240404295 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Tebbens (US 20220187837 A1), and in further in view of Sutarwala (US 12420826 B1) . Regarding claim 6, Nishida does not explicitly disclose but, Sutarwala teaches wherein each of the individual evaluation units executes evaluation on same rule, by using a different algorithm according to a difference in output source of the sensor data. Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Nishida with the different algorithms taught in Sutarwala with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing robustness and redundancy. Regarding claim 7, Sutarwala teaches wherein each of the individual evaluation units executes evaluation on same rule, by using same algorithm and a different parameter according to a difference in output source of the sensor data. Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Nishida with the different algorithms taught in Sutarwala with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing robustness and redundancy . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDA (US 20200207362 A1) in view of Dobberphul (US 20240404295 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Tebbens (US 20220187837 A1), and in further in view of Duplys (US 20220297705 A1) . Regarding claim 8, NISHIDA does not explicitly disclose but, Duplys teaches wherein the set of rules is provided in common among the plurality of individual evaluation units, and each of the individual evaluation units evaluates the rules that partially differ from each other among the plurality of rules, by excluding a part of the plurality of rules included in the set of rules from an evaluation target in accordance with a difference in output source of the sensor data, based on the set of rules (¶ 0049 ). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Nishida with the evaluation of different rules taught in Duplys with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing robustness and redundancy . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIDA (US 20200207362 A1) in view of Dobberphul (US 20240404295 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Kwon (US 20220363279 A1) . Regarding claim 11, NISHIDA does not explicitly disclose but, Kwon teaches wherein the plurality of individual evaluation units are implemented by one processor in common (¶0056). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Nishida with the single processor taught in Kown with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted combating a stop-and-go wave problem using deep reinforcement learning based autonomous vehicles. Regarding claim 12, Kwon teaches wherein the plurality of individual evaluation units are implemented by separate processors each individually corresponding to the individual evaluation unit (¶0056). Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Nishida with the multiple processors taught in Kown with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted combating a stop-and-go wave problem using deep reinforcement learning based autonomous vehicles . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. OBA (US 20220289250 A1) teaches Individually-identifiable data included in observation information of a driver or the like of a vehicle or data for which recording processing is not permitted in a personal information protection regulation is abstracted or encrypted and recorded. A driver information acquisition unit that acquires the observation information of the driver of the vehicle and a data processing unit that inputs the observation information and executes data processing are included. The data processing unit divides the observation information into conversion unnecessary data and conversion necessary data, executes abstraction processing or encryption processing for the conversion necessary data, and stores conversion data such as abstraction data or encryption data in a storage unit. The data processing unit executes the abstraction processing or the encryption processing for the individually-identifiable data included in the observation information or the data for which recording processing is not permitted in the personal information protection regulation as the conversion necessary data (abstract) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5. 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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. /REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 15 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 19/214,853 Page 16 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights