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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 09/18/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 102024208910.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025, 10/09/2025, 01/30/2026 were filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Claim 12 recites a “means for carrying out…” as such it is interpreted under 112(f); when the specification is reviewed no clear linking as to the physical structure of the “means for carrying out” the method were found. On page 22, in the third paragraph of the page (starting line 12); this paragraph details that the invention further comprises a data processing device or a controlling device comprising means….; this fails to provide structure in that as currently worded this section teaches that the “means for carrying out” is some component of data processing device or a controlling device, it does not actually detail what this “means”/sub-component is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 lacks adequate written description in the applicant’s specification in that it recites the generating a control signal for the agent based on “common motion plan and/or the selected motion plan”; this issue with this is while the specification does provide an equivalent recitation to the claim language in the specification; when the applicants invention is disclosed in detail the control signal is based on one or the other of the two plans; (i.e. the control signal is generated and the vehicle is controlled according to the common motion plan up until the postponing time and then it can select a singular motion plan (exclude all scenarios but one) and then it uses the selected plan to control the vehicle through intersection/area with occlusions. As such the “and” portion of “and/or” lacks adequate written description in that the applicant’s disclosed invention does not use both the common and selected motion plans to generate a given control signal, instead it appears to temporarily/iteratively use the common motion plan to create a first control signal (up until the point the vehicle can exclude all but one possible scenarios) and then it creates a control signal based on the selected motion plan of the remaining scenario. There is no disclosure of a single control signal which is based on both the common motion plan and the selected motion plan.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 12, “means for carrying out” is interpreted under 112(f) but as noted in the claim interpretation section above no structure is clearly linked or indicated for what the “means” is. While the means is located on a computer it is unclear if the “means” is the physical processor/memory of the computer or if it is a software module or both.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15 it recites “…including a data processing device according to claim 12”; as such it inherits claim 12’s 112(f) interpretation of “a means for carrying out” which results in the overall same lack of written description in that the applicant’s specification does not clearly disclose what the structure of the “means for carrying out” the method is.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation “… wherein the cost function preferably includes…”, “preferably” renders the scope of protection unclear in that it is uncertain if its corresponding limitation is required by the claim or not.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Claim 13 recites a “computer program comprising instructions…” as such it is directed to software per-se and does not fall within the four statutory categories for patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Regarding the below 101 abstract idea rejections, these rejections could be overcome by amending claim 1 to positively claim the control of the autonomous agent based on the common motion plan and the selected motion plan. Currently claim 1 does recite determining the motion plans, but it does not actually recite implementing those plans it only recites the determining of those motion plans which is a mental determination which can be performed in the human mind at the currently level of generality. Grounds for such an amendment can be found on at least: page 5 first paragraph (teaches the agent follows, i.e. implements, the common motion plan) and page 20-21, last two lines of 20 continuing on to page 21 (teaches the agent driving using the selected motion plan).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of assessing a traffic situation, building an occlusion map, building a scenario tree based on the occlusion map and then waiting and reassessing at future times. This is equivalent to a passenger in a vehicle observing a surrounding intersection/area and making note of road areas that are currently occluded and updating their belief on how a driver should drive/react based on the currently occluded areas and the traffic situation the passenger can see. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actually implementing the common and/or selected motion plan by the vehicle.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While the claim does recite that the method is for “determining a motion plan for driving an autonomous agent in a traffic situation, the agent including a sensor for capturing sensor data in a sensor field of view, the sensor data being indicative of the traffic situation”, there are no limitations in the body of the claim that recite actually implementing the motion plan. While the preamble links that determining motion plan for driving an autonomous agent, this is merely linking the abstract idea of a field of use (autonomous vehicles/robotics/agents) at a high level of generality. Additionally the recited sensor/operation thereof is recited as such a high level of generality that it also is only generally linking the abstract idea of a field of use. While the data is selected and transmitted, it is not transformed by any steps of the method, or used implement a specific control of the vehicle.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of the method are performed by a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Performing determinations on data on computers are WURC activities of such, and the agent in the preamble of claim 1 is recited at such a high level of generality that is merely linking the abstract idea of a field of use as opposed to linking it to a specific machine.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 2, it further recites minimizing a cost function wherein the cost function includes predicting future occlusion maps which preferable includes a term for maximizing information gains, this is equivalent to a person thinking what future observation positions would be likely to give them a more complete (gain more information) about the surrounding environment. Only the determination of suitable motion plans is claimed not the actual implementation of those plans.
Regarding Claim 3, it recites updating the predicted occlusion maps and excluding scenarios from the scenario tree based on future/subsequent sensor data this is equivalent to a person updating what they can/can’t see at a future time and based on the current observations ruling out possibilities (scenarios) they previously thought may be possible but that they now know can’t be possible.
Regarding Claim 4, it further recites building a scenario tree which further includes worst and/or best case scenarios for occluded areas, this is equivalent to a person assuming there is or isn’t a vehicle/pedestrian/dangerous object in a given occluded area.
Regarding Claim 5, it further recites estimating a maximum velocity and/or acceleration of an assumed obstacle and determining a reachable area for that assumed obstacle; this is equivalent to a person assuming that a occluded area has a vehicle which is strongly accelerating from a stop and then determining an area it is likely the other vehicle could reach from that.
Regarding Claim 6, it recites predicting an occlusion map for each scenario based on the position and/or orientation of the agent. This is equivalent to a person thinking about possible future position (scenarios) and then based on their current knowledge of obstacle locations predicting how their future view would or wouldn’t be blocked by those observed objects.
Regarding Claim 7, it recites determining an occupancy map based on current sensor data and based on the current occupancy map determining an occlusion map; this is equivalent to a person recognizing a space around them as occupied or empty and based on areas they can’t assign as either as being occluded.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites that the determining the current occlusion map is based on extending a straight line from a sensor up to a maximum sensed region. This is equivalent to a person recognizing that they can’t see beyond an object and thus do not know the occupancy of the region (up to their sight distance) beyond that occluding object.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites filtering/rating occlusion map based on the relevance score of occluded areas, this is equivalent to a person recognizing that an occluded area corresponds to an exiting lane/direction from an intersection and thus it isn’t currently relevant to the intersection given than any hidden vehicles in that region are unlikely to come back into the intersection.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites that the relevance score is based on a navigation, distance from the agent to an occluded area, reachability of an assumed object, and/or the nature of one or more occupied area in the FOV. This is equivalent to a person recognizing that a given occluded area is far away from the vehicle and thus an possible objects (cars) which may drive out from it are unlikely to affect the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites generating a control signal based on the common motion plan and/or selected motion plan. This is generally outputting the results of the abstract idea. “Generating” a control signal does not actually claim the reception of and implementing of the generated signal by the agent.
Claims 12-15 are device, computer program, non-transitory computer readable medium equivalents, and agent equivalents to the method of claim 1. They have the same overall 101 analysis. Claim 12 and 15 have additionally positively claimed components of data processing device (i.e. a computer) and a sensor/autonomous agent. The implementing of an abstract idea on a computer does not provide specific machine integration; additionally the claimed autonomous agent is recited at such a high level of generality regarding its components and sensor it is merely linking the abstract idea portion of a field of use and does not provide a specific machine integration.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art was found to teach or render obvious at least the determining of a decision time (T.p) wherein the vehicle post-pones selecting a specific scenarios motion plan until only one scenario (and corresponding motion plan) remains.
As a comparison to the found prior art, in addition to the cited IDS art, closest piece of prior art found to the applicant’s claimed invention is: US 20190339702 A1, it teaches a control system/method for an autonomous vehicle which includes a plurality of strategies for an autonomous vehicle to navigate an intersection which includes a “Creep-and-Go” strategy [0042] “In some aspects, the Creep-and-Go DQN may be a hybrid of the Sequential Action DQN and the Time-to-Go DQN. For example, the Creep-and-Go DQN may involve three actions: wait, move forward slowly, and go. In some aspects, once a go action is selected, the vehicle 102 may continue all the way through the intersection. As a result, the vehicle 102 may choose between moving up slowly and stopping before finally choosing a go action. In some aspects, the Creep-and-Go DQN may be used to handle intersections with occlusions, e.g., objects that are obstructed from the view of the vehicle 102.” Which teaches a vehicle slowly creeping (i.e. following a common motion plan) until it is able to select a “go” (i.e. selected motion plan); this system however does not teach calculating a postponing time as recited in the independent claim 1.
An additional piece of close art is US 20190384309 A1, Silva. It teaches an autonomous vehicle control system which includes in [0050] the autonomous vehicle creeping forward to discover occluded regions of the intersection it is attempting to traverse and then once the amount of occluded regions/zones has been reduced to below a threshold value then selecting a motion plan to traverse the intersection. This however does not teach the calculation of a postponing time as recited in the applicants claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180095466 A1; US 20190339702 A1; US 20190384309 A1; US 20190384302 A1; US 20200285244 A1; US 20220185267 A1; US 20200310425 A1; US 20190025843 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights