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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 5, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for KR10-2024-0112625 dated August 22, 2024.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a n-th point and should recite “an n-th point”;
Claim 11 recites a n-th point and should recite “an n-th point”; and
Claim 11 recites the n-th segment which lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a method, and claim 11 is directed toward an apparatus. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 and 11 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. The language of independent claim 11 is used for illustration:
An apparatus for determining accuracy of a predicted path for a vehicle, wherein the predicted path comprises a sequence of points representing driving information of the vehicle at each of a plurality of time points in the prediction time window, the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing commands (this limitation is considered a generic computer component); and
at least one processor (this limitation is considered a generic computer component), wherein the at least one processor executes the commands to:
receive a first predicted path generated at a current time point and a second predicted path generated before the current time point (this limitation is considered extra-solution activity, as explained further below);
determine a path prediction error of a n-th point in the first predicted path based on a difference between driving information of the vehicle at the current time point and driving information of a n-th point related to the current time point in the second predicted path, wherein the n is an integer greater than o and less than or equal to the number of points in the predicted path (a person may mentally observe the two received paths having multiple points displayed along the paths and mentally determine an error of one point in the first predicted path relative to another point in the second predicted path where both points are located at the same point along the path); and
determine path prediction accuracy for the n-th segment based on the path prediction error of the n-th point in the first predicted path, wherein the n-th segment is the first predicted path up to the n-th point (a person may mentally determine a path prediction accuracy for the a segment of the first predicted path based on the previously mentally determined error of the two points).
As explained above, independent claim 11 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 1, which is of similar scope to claim 11, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 such as 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”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1 and 11 recite the additional elements of at least one memory…, at least one processor…, and receive a first predicted path…. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a. at least one memory… found in independent claim 11. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer;
b. at least one processor… found in independent claim 11. This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer;
c. receive a first predicted path… found in independent claims 1 and 11. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as explained further below.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitation of receive a first predicted path… as recited above, is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitation of receive a first predicted path… is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, because it has been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. receive a first predicted path… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1 and 11 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art and may be found allowable after the above objections and rejections are remedied. Examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The combination of claim limitations determining a path prediction error of a n-th point in the first predicted path based on a difference between driving information of the vehicle at the current time point and driving information of a n-th point related to the current time point in the second predicted path, wherein the n is an integer greater than o and less than or equal to the number of points in the predicted path; and determining a path prediction accuracy of n-th segment based on the path prediction error of the n-th point in the first predicted path, wherein the n-th segment is the first predicted path up to the n-th point of claim 1 and the corresponding limitations in claim 11, when considered with other claim features, renders the independent claims, as well as their dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record neither discloses nor teaches determining an accuracy of a segment of a predicted path up to a point based on a path prediction error of the predicted path based on a difference at the point between the predicted point and the actual point at a current time point.
The closest prior art includes KR2020/0133853 which discloses comparing a predicted driving trajectory to an actual driving trajectory to determine an error therebetween. However, KR2020/0133853 fails to explicitly teach or render obvious the trajectories each comprising points along the paths wherein at least one set of points is compared at a current time point.
US2022/0215603 attempts to remedy the deficiencies of KR2020/0133853 by teaching each route having a plurality of points in series and compares various paths. However, US2022/0215603 fails to disclose that the comparison of points is between a point of a predicted path and a point of an actual path. Instead, points of candidate paths are compared.
US10,831,210 likewise attempts to remedy the deficiencies of KR2020/0133853 by teaching an improvement to tracking objects by comparing predicted behavior to actual behavior of objects with iterative improvements based on comparisons of expected object data to measured object data for matched points in time. However, such updates are not taught as being utilized to predict an accuracy of a path segment, as required by the claims.
The combination of KR2020/0133853, US2022/0215603, and US10,831,210 fails to disclose each and every limitation of the claimed subject matter. Specifically, that the path segment accuracy is determined based on the comparison of two points where one point is a current time point of the predicted trajectory and one point is a current time point of the actual trajectory. For at least these reasons, the claims are found allowable over the prior art.
Additionally relevant art includes US2019/0179328 which discloses a neural network which is trained based on comparisons between predicted paths and actual paths to improve the accuracy of the predicted paths and US2024/0317273 which discloses determining an accuracy of the motion prediction model based on a comparison of an endpoint of a predicted trajectory and orientation of the predicted trajectory to lane segments
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights