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 § 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.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-12 are directed to a method (i.e. process), and claims 13-20 are directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
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 groupings 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 computer implemented method for updating a Model Predictive Control (MPC) component of a vehicle with a dynamically derived operational parameter, the method comprising:
simulating a vehicle operation across a range of potential values corresponding to an operational parameter over a plurality of steps of a time horizon;
based on the simulation, determining an input to satisfy a performance constraint of the vehicle at each of the plurality of steps of the time horizon, the input comprising at least one of a plurality of Model Predictive Control (MPC) inputs for an MPC component of the vehicle;
determining the operational parameter based on the determined input and levels of performance of the vehicle determined from the simulation at each step of the time horizon; and
updating the MPC component of the vehicle based on the determined operational parameter.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretations, the limitations cover performance of the human mind (i.e. determining). A person could determine amount of input to provide to the vehicle based on the observer environmental surroundings. Meaning the driver is capable of providing a lateral force based on determining the lateral force being required to avoid an upcoming obstacle. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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 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 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.”
A computer implemented method for updating a Model Predictive Control (MPC) component of a vehicle with a dynamically derived operational parameter, the method comprising:
simulating a vehicle operation across a range of potential values corresponding to an operational parameter over a plurality of steps of a time horizon;
based on the simulation, determining an input to satisfy a performance constraint of the vehicle at each of the plurality of steps of the time horizon, the input comprising at least one of a plurality of Model Predictive Control (MPC) inputs for an MPC component of the vehicle;
determining the operational parameter based on the determined input and levels of performance of the vehicle determined from the simulation at each step of the time horizon; and
updating the MPC component of the vehicle based on the determined operational parameter.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the previously noted abstract idea into a practical application:
In particular, the underlined claim elements merely disclose simulating a vehicle operation and updating a model based on the determined parameters. The examiner puts forth the simulating is claimed in a generic manner, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, updating the model based on the determined parameters amounts to no more than insignificant extra solution activity.
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. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of updating the model is insufficient for significantly more. Furthermore updating a database is considered to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); .
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claims recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 2-12 and 14-20, the claims specify and/or further limits similar to the previously addressed abstract idea above and does not recite additional limitations that present a practical application nor amount to “significantly more” for analogous reasons above.
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 (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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 2012/0083947; hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding Claim 1:
A computer implemented method for updating a Model Predictive Control (MPC) component of a vehicle with a dynamically derived operational parameter, the method comprising: simulating a vehicle operation across a range of potential values corresponding to an operational parameter over a plurality of steps of a time horizon (Anderson, Para. [0036], Anderson discloses simulating the vehicle dynamics while considering a plurality of vehicle effects over a time horizon);
based on the simulation, determining an input to satisfy a performance constraint of the vehicle at each of the plurality of steps of the time horizon, the input comprising at least one of a plurality of Model Predictive Control (MPC) inputs for an MPC component of the vehicle (Anderson, Para. [0044], Anderson discloses determining an optimal input for necessary for the vehicle to perform an optimal trajectory, with the input being based on the simulated model and model predictive control planner);
determining the operational parameter based on the determined input and levels of performance of the vehicle determined from the simulation at each step of the time horizon (Anderson, Para. [0044-0045], Anderson discloses determining the optimal operational trajectory for the vehicle at every sampling time step); and
updating the MPC component of the vehicle based on the determined operational parameter (Anderson, Para. [0072-0073], Anderson discloses the MPC planner of the vehicle continuously or dynamically updates the optimal trajectory of the vehicle based on the vehicle parameters).
Regarding Claim 2:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Anderson further discloses wherein simulating a vehicle operation comprises determining a lateral force to satisfy the performance constraint; and determining the lateral force is based on a command lateral force according to a driver input if the command lateral force satisfies the performance constraint during a step of the time horizon (Anderson, Para. [0036], [0046], Anderson discloses simulating the vehicle dynamics while considering a plurality of vehicle effect, including lateral accelerations, and determining the amount of lateral forces to satisfy reducing an upcoming threat based on the driver response, see at least Para. [0049], [0055-0056]).
Regarding Claim 3:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 2.
Anderson further discloses wherein determining the lateral force comprises maintaining the command lateral force if the command lateral force satisfies the performance constraint during a step of the time horizon (Anderson, Para. [0036], [0046], Anderson discloses simulating the vehicle dynamics while considering a plurality of vehicle effect, including lateral accelerations, and determining the amount of lateral forces to satisfy reducing an upcoming threat based on the driver response, see at least Para. [0049], [0055-0056]).
Regarding Claim 4:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 2.
Anderson further discloses wherein determining the lateral force comprises overriding the command lateral force if the command lateral force fails to satisfy the performance constraint during a step of the time horizon (Anderson, Para. [0036], [0046], Anderson discloses simulating the vehicle dynamics while considering a plurality of vehicle effect, including lateral accelerations, and determining the amount of lateral forces to satisfy reducing an upcoming threat based on the driver response, see at least Para. [0049], [0055-0056]).
Regarding Claim 5:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 4.
Anderson further discloses herein overriding the command lateral force comprises determining a smallest possible amount of change in the command lateral force in order to satisfy the performance constraint during a step of the time horizon (Anderson, Para. [0036], [0046], Anderson discloses simulating the vehicle dynamics while considering a plurality of vehicle effect, including lateral accelerations, and determining the amount of lateral forces to satisfy reducing an upcoming threat based on the driver response, see at least Para. [0049], [0055-0056], with the amount of lateral acceleration comprising a minimum lateral acceleration).
Regarding Claim 6:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Anderson further discloses wherein simulating a vehicle operation comprises maintaining a constant lateral force during a particular step of the time horizon (Anderson, Para. [0036], [0046], Anderson discloses simulating the vehicle dynamics while considering a plurality of vehicle effect, including lateral accelerations, and determining the amount of lateral forces to satisfy reducing an upcoming threat based on the driver response, see at least Para. [0049], [0055-0056] throughout the entire time steps).
Regarding Claim 7:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Anderson further discloses wherein the operational parameter characterizes an interaction between a vehicle and an environment, the computer implemented method further comprising: in response to a change to an environmental parameter or a vehicular parameter, deriving an updated operational parameter based on an updated simulation of the vehicle operation (Anderson, Para. [0097], Anderson discloses responding to an environmental parameter change and updating the optimal trajectory based on the updated model and MPC planning update); and
updating a training dataset based on the updated operational parameter (Anderson, Para. [0073-0074], Anderson discloses the simulating model continues to determine predictions for satisfying constraints as the environment changes).
Regarding Claim 8:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Anderson further discloses wherein the performance constraint is based on a sideslip or a yaw rate (Anderson, Para. [0062], [0068], Anderson discloses vehicle performance constraints include both sideslip angle and yaw angle).
Regarding Claim 9:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 8.
Anderson further discloses wherein the result of the simulated vehicle operation is based on a cost on the performance constraint, a cost on the input, or a cost on a slack variable, wherein the slack variable is based on one or more polytopic inequalities (Anderson, Para. [0067], Anderson discloses determining the optimal trajectory, and lateral acceleration, is based on a cost of the object function).
Regarding Claim 10:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Anderson further discloses wherein determining the lateral force is restricted based on a lower threshold lateral force and an upper threshold lateral force (Anderson, Para. [0075], Anderson discloses the optimal trajectory, and lateral accelerations, are restricted to a minimum lateral acceleration and a maximum allowed lateral acceleration, such as the driver swerving).
Regarding Claim 11:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Anderson further discloses further comprising implementing a variable time length for the plurality of time steps based on zero-order hold for time steps that are less than a threshold duration and first-order hold for time steps that exceed the threshold duration (Anderson, Para. [0080-0082], Anderson discloses implementing a variable for the time horizon based on the minimum and maximum constraint violations, ensuring vehicle parameters do not exceed limits at successive time steps, see at least Para. [0038]).
Regarding Claim 12:
Anderson discloses the computer implemented method of claim 11.
Anderson further discloses further comprising aligning different physical representations corresponding to time steps having variable time length (Anderson, Para. [0072], Anderson discloses comparing different vehicle models over different vehicle parameters, with various time step durations).
Regarding Claim 13:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 14:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 15:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 16:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 17:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 18:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 19:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 20:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights