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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 13 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 3 recites “determining a passing probability of the first obstacle based on at least one of….a type of a lane that the first obstacle enters after exiting the intersection,…wherein the passing probability indicates a probability that the first obstacle selects a lane from the plurality of lanes for exiting the intersection” (emphasis added). If the passing probability indicates the probability that an obstacle will (i.e. in future) select a particular lane, then why is one of the criteria for determining the passing probability “a type of a lane that the first obstacle enters after exiting the intersection”? On its face, this seems to suggest that the probability the obstacle chooses a lane is based in part on the fact that the lane was already chosen.
However, Examiner believes the claim is intended to refer to a type of the exit lane (or a type of each exit lane) that the obstacle might choose, such that the limitation refers to determining the passing probability based on lane type, and not based on the type of lane that an obstacle has already entered. Examiner will interpret the claim accordingly for purposes of examination.
Thus, claim 3 is rejected as indefinite. Claim 13, which has similar limitations, is likewise rejected as indefinite using a similar rationale.
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.
In January, 2019 (updated October 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 process, which falls within one of the statutory categories.
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).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for selecting lanes, comprising:
when a vehicle is at an intersection, obtaining information about a first obstacle around the vehicle and road topology information;
determining a plurality of lanes based on the road topology information, wherein the plurality of lanes are lanes through which the vehicle exits the intersection;
determining a collision risk between the vehicle and the first obstacle based on the information about the first obstacle;
and selecting, based on the collision risk, a first lane from the plurality of lanes to exit the intersection.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining a plurality of lanes, determining a collision risk, and selecting a first lane based on the collision risk. This is equivalent to normal driving behavior, where a human driver observes lanes in an intersection, determines that another vehicle’s path might intersection your own through the intersection, and controlling the vehicle through a safe lane to avoid the collision.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person driving a car could determine a lane to avoid a collision. The mere nominal recitation (implied here in claim 1, though more explicit in claims 11 and 20) that the process is being executed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual use of the lane selection in controlling the vehicle in a specific manner. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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 recites:
A method for selecting lanes, comprising:
when a vehicle is at an intersection, obtaining information about a first obstacle around the vehicle and road topology information;
determining a plurality of lanes based on the road topology information, wherein the plurality of lanes are lanes through which the vehicle exits the intersection;
determining a collision risk between the vehicle and the first obstacle based on the information about the first obstacle;
and selecting, based on the collision risk, a first lane from the plurality of lanes to exit the intersection.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. 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 methods steps are performed by a computer, and 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.
The obtaining steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
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. Receiving and evaluating data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by computers, such as the computer in claim 1. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the method steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data (analogous to alerts or other prompts, which occurs in some of the dependent claims) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
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.
Claims 11 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
The dependent claims are likewise ineligible. The claims either add to the mental process (claims 2-5, 7, 12-15, 17), add additional post-solution activity (claims 6, 16), or add additional data gathering, which is a form of extra-solution activity (claims 8-9, 18-19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200353920 by Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”), further in view of US20210122373 by Dax (hereinafter “Dax”).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches A method for selecting lanes, comprising: when a vehicle is at an intersection, obtaining information about a first obstacle around the vehicle and road topology information; see for example paragraphs [0047]-[0048], where the perception system extractions intersection features and obstacle features.
determining a plurality of lanes based on the road topology information, wherein the plurality of lanes are lanes through which the vehicle exits the intersection; see again [0047], where the exit in question has “multiple exits.” See also paragraph [0035], where the system extracts information about multiple lanes in the road, including exiting lanes. See also Fig. 6, where the intersection has a plurality of exit lanes in each direction.
determining a ; see for example paragraph [0055] and Fig. 8, where in operation 804 the vehicle determines a probable exit lane for the obstacle (other vehicle), and subsequently in step 805 plans a route for the ego vehicle through the intersection that avoids the other vehicles.
and selecting, . See again paragraph [0055] and Fig. 8, where in operation 804 the vehicle determines a probable exit lane for the obstacle (other vehicle), and subsequently in step 805 plans a route for the ego vehicle through the intersection that avoids the other vehicles. See also paragraphs [0043], [0048], and [0050], generally expressing the same idea.
Sun does not explicitly teach determining a collision risk. Although Sun clearly predicts obstacle paths through the intersection in order for the ego vehicle to avoid collisions (with the obstacle), Sun does not explicitly teach determining a probability or collision risk.
However, Dax teaches a system which determines a collision risk in order to select[], based on the collision risk, a first lane from the plurality of lanes to exit the intersection. See for example paragraphs [0027]-[0028], as well as [0032]-[0033], where the system predicts an object’s most likely trajectory in order to determine a collision zone. See also paragraphs [0102]-[0112] and Figs. 7A and 7B, where the ego vehicle is at an intersection, detects another vehicle and the likelihood of collision, and proceeds to evaluate different path options (maintain trajectory, yield/accelerate, or determine another trajectory; see also paragraph [0036]) through the intersection to avoid a collision.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intersection lane selection system of Sun with the collision avoidance system of Dax with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a vehicle in an intersection to estimate another vehicle’s trajectory, determine if a collision might occur, and select the appropriate lane accordingly.
Claims 11 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Sun does not explicitly teach, but Dax teaches wherein determining the collision risk between the vehicle and the first obstacle based on the information about the first obstacle comprises: determining the collision risk based on a time to collision (TTC) between the vehicle and the first obstacle and/or a distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle. See for example paragraphs [0107]-[0109], where the vehicle determines an area where a collision is “possible” or “likely”, or else “not possible” or “highly unlikely”. See also Fig 3B and paragraphs [0038]-[0040], where the system uses the time that each vehicle enters the collision zone to determine a collision probably and cost.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intersection lane selection system of Sun with the collision avoidance system of Dax with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a vehicle in an intersection to estimate another vehicle’s trajectory, determine if a collision might occur, and select the appropriate lane accordingly.
Claim 12 has similar limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Sun teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining a passing probability of the first obstacle based on at least one of the road topology information, a type of a lane that the first obstacle enters after exiting the intersection, information about a guide line in the intersection, or a motion trend of the first obstacle, wherein the passing probability indicates a probability that the first obstacle selects a lane from the plurality of lanes for exiting the intersection; In addition to, e.g., paragraph [0055] above, see also paragraphs [0050]-[0054], where the system determines the most probable exit for the obstacle based on the vehicle’s proximity, heading, and speed, as well as the intersection topology.
and selecting the first lane from the plurality of lanes to exit the intersection comprises: selecting, based on the . See again paragraph [0055] and Fig. 8, where in operation 804 the vehicle determines a probable exit lane for the obstacle (other vehicle), and subsequently in step 805 plans a route for the ego vehicle through the intersection that avoids the other vehicles. See also paragraphs [0043], [0048], and [0050], generally expressing the same idea.
Sun does not explicitly teach determining a collision risk. Although Sun clearly predicts obstacle paths through the intersection in order for the ego vehicle to avoid collisions (with the obstacle), Sun does not explicitly teach determining a probability or collision risk.
However, Dax teaches a system which determines a collision risk in order to determine a route through the intersection. See for example paragraphs [0027]-[0028], as well as [0032]-[0033], where the system predicts an object’s most likely trajectory in order to determine a collision zone. See also paragraphs [0102]-[0112] and Figs. 7A and 7B, where the ego vehicle is at an intersection, detects another vehicle and the likelihood of collision, and proceeds to evaluate different path options (maintain trajectory, yield/accelerate, or determine another trajectory; see also paragraph [0036]) through the intersection to avoid a collision.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intersection lane selection system of Sun with the collision avoidance system of Dax with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a vehicle in an intersection to estimate another vehicle’s trajectory, determine if a collision might occur, and select the appropriate lane accordingly.
Claim 13 has similar limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Sun teaches wherein selecting a the first lane from the plurality of lanes to exit the intersection comprises: selecting, based on the collision risk, an included angle between an orientation of the vehicle and an orientation of each lane of the plurality of lanes, and an included angle between an orientation of the first obstacle and the orientation of each lane, the first lane from the plurality of lanes to exit the intersection. See for example paragraphs [0038]-[0040], where the system determines the objects direction and turning angle, and in paragraphs [0050]-[0054] uses that information to determine the likely exit lane from the intersection.
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 4, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Sun teaches wherein the method further comprises: before the vehicle passes through the intersection, determining the first obstacle from a plurality of obstacles based on a TTC between the vehicle and each obstacle of the plurality of obstacles, and/or a distance between the vehicle and each obstacle; or when the vehicle passes through the intersection, determining the first obstacle from a plurality of obstacles based on at least one of a TTC between the vehicle and each obstacle of the plurality of obstacles, a distance between the vehicle and each obstacle, or a predicted trajectory of each obstacle. See for example paragraphs [0036], [0040], and [0043]-[0044], where the perception system detects multiple obstacles. The vehicle determines the location of the obstacle in the intersection relative to the ego vehicle, see paragraphs [0035], [0048], and [0054]-[0055], in order to predict its motion through the intersection. Together, this reads at least on a distance between the vehicle and each obstacle, as well as a distance between the vehicle and each obstacle, or a predicted trajectory of each obstacle.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 5, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: determining an obstacle avoidance trajectory of the vehicle in the first lane based on the . See again paragraphs [0050]-[0055] and Fig. 8, where the vehicle determines a probable exit lane for the obstacle (other vehicle), and subsequently plans a route for the ego vehicle through the intersection that avoids the other vehicles.
Sun does not explicitly teach determining a collision risk. Although Sun clearly predicts obstacle paths through the intersection in order for the ego vehicle to avoid collisions (with the obstacle), Sun does not explicitly teach determining a probability or collision risk.
However, Dax teaches a system which determines a collision risk in order to determine a route through the intersection. See for example paragraphs [0027]-[0028], as well as [0032]-[0033], where the system predicts an object’s most likely trajectory in order to determine a collision zone. See also paragraphs [0102]-[0112] and Figs. 7A and 7B, where the ego vehicle is at an intersection, detects another vehicle and the likelihood of collision, and proceeds to evaluate different path options (maintain trajectory, yield/accelerate, or determine another trajectory; see also paragraph [0036]) through the intersection to avoid a collision.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intersection lane selection system of Sun with the collision avoidance system of Dax with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a vehicle in an intersection to estimate another vehicle’s trajectory, determine if a collision might occur, and select the appropriate lane accordingly.
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 7, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, Sun teaches wherein the information about the first obstacle comprises one or more of a location, a speed, an acceleration, a speed direction, a heading direction, or a yaw rate of the first obstacle. See for example paragraphs [0038], [0048]-[0049], and [0054]-[0055], where the system determines an object’s speed, direction, turning angle, etc.
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 8, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Sun teaches wherein the road topology information comprises at least one of lane division information of a road on which the vehicle is located, a type of each lane, or lane line information of each lane. See for example paragraphs [0035] and [0050], where the system is aware of intersection topology, including number of lanes, shape of lanes, one-way or two-way lanes, etc.
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claim 9, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, Sun teaches wherein the method further comprises: planning a traveling trajectory of the vehicle from a current location to the first lane. See again paragraph [0055], where the vehicle plans a trajectory through the intersection.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Dax as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US20190018419 by Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 6, Sun does not explicitly teach, but Lee teaches wherein the method further comprises: controlling a prompt apparatus to prompt information about the first lane. See for example paragraphs [0286], [0298], [0305], [0310]-[0312], and [0315], where the system either generates some for of collision warning (alarm, buzzer, seat belt tightening, etc.), prompts the user about an optimum entry time, or prompts the driver about the lane change, any one of which could read on wherein the method further comprises: controlling a prompt apparatus to prompt information about the first lane.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intersection lane selection system of Sun, modified by the collision avoidance system of Dax, with the prompt system of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows a vehicle to inform a driver/passenger about a potential problem in the intersection driving path.
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20230399023 by Li et al. teaching predicting a vehicle’s intention through an intersection.
US20220396290 by Oh teaching determining a collision risk and planning accordingly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights