Amazon Technologies, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 30, 20202020002330 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/673,952 08/10/2017 Jon Stuart Battles 110.0729-US 7280 136715 7590 12/30/2020 Athorus, PLLC P.O. Box 579 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 EXAMINER TISSOT, ADAM D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): athorus.docket@athorus.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JON STUART BATTLES, JAMES CHRISTOPHER CURLANDER, LARRY FELSER, GUR KIMCHI, and PRAGYANA K. MISHRA ____________________ Appeal 2020-002330 Application 15/673,952 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JAMES A. WORTH, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision rejecting claims 1–20, which constitute all pending claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Amazon Technologies, Inc.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002330 Application 15/673,952 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The title of Appellant’s invention is “COORDINATED OPTIMIZATION OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE OPERATIONS.” Spec. 1. Independent claims 1, 5, and 18 recite substantially similar subject matter. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and recites: 1. A method of coordinating operations of a plurality of autonomous ground-based vehicles, comprising: receiving, by a processor, information related to autonomous strategy modes of one or more of the plurality of autonomous ground-based vehicles, wherein the autonomous strategy modes comprise a plurality of autonomous strategy modes including uncoupled strategy modes, permissive strategy modes, assistive strategy modes, or preventative strategy modes, wherein each of the plurality of autonomous strategy modes comprises a respective set of available actions of the plurality of autonomous ground-based vehicles; receiving, by the processor, information related to aspects of one or more environments of the plurality of autonomous ground- based vehicles; receiving, by the processor, information related to topological constraints associated with the one or more environments; processing, by the processor, the information related to the autonomous strategy modes of the one or more of the plurality of autonomous ground-based vehicles, the information related to the aspects of the one or more environments, and the information related to the topological constraints associated with the one or more environments based at least in part on an operational goal for the plurality of autonomous ground-based vehicles; and instructing, by the processor, modifications to operations of one or more of the plurality of autonomous ground-based vehicles based at least in part on the information processed based at least in part on the operational goal. Appeal 2020-002330 Application 15/673,952 3 REJECTION Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klinger (US 2013/0238170 A1, pub. Sept. 12, 2013).2 DISCUSSION Invention The Abstract section of Appellant’s Specification, reproduced below, describes the invention. Systems and methods for coordinating operations of a plurality of autonomous vehicles. An autonomous vehicle management system may receive information from the plurality of autonomous vehicles related to strategy modes, actions, and the environments. The strategy modes may include an uncoupled strategy mode, a permissive strategy mode, an assistive strategy mode, and a preventative strategy mode. The autonomous vehicle management system may then process the received information based on an operational goal for the system as a whole. The autonomous vehicle management system may then instruct modifications to operations of one or more of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to achieve the operational goal for the system. Preliminary Observations In the Final Office Action mailed May 17, 2019, the Examiner rejects claim 1 as being anticipated by Klinger. Final Act. 4. In a Response filed after Final Action, Appellant amends claim 1 to add: “wherein each of the plurality of autonomous strategy modes comprises a respective set of available actions of the plurality of autonomous ground-based vehicles” 2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–12 and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Klinger (Ans. 6), and entered a New Ground of Rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Klinger (id. at 3). Appeal 2020-002330 Application 15/673,952 4 (After-Final Amdt. 2 (filed July 2, 2019)), which the Examiner enters into the record in an Advisory Action mailed on July 18, 2019. The Examiner then issues a new ground, obviousness rejection over Klinger because of “the ‘set of actions’ limitation entered in the After Final Amendment.” Ans. 12. That rejection is before us for review. 35 U.S.C. § 103 We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Klinger. Reply Br. 4–9. Appellant argues that “even if the cited sections of Klinger may be considered to describe various actions, the cited sections of Klinger do not disclose a plurality of autonomous strategy modes that each comprise a respective set of available actions.” Id. at 4. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed autonomous strategy modes as applied to the description of Klinger, particularly because “Klinger only briefly refers to an autonomous behavior controller that controls a vehicle to follow its planned path, without any further discussion of how the autonomous behavior controller actually operates or functions.” Id. at 5, 7. We agree. The Examiner’s interpretation of autonomous strategy modes is inconsistent with the meaning that term would have to an artisan as understood in light of the Specification. The Examiner finds that the Specification does not provide a formal definition of the term mode and provides non-limiting examples “using potential actions available in each mode.” Ans. 7 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 27–29). The Examiner defines the term mode “as ‘a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done’ (see Google, search term: ‘define mode’).” Id. Based on that general definition, which we find is unsuitable for a term of art in Appeal 2020-002330 Application 15/673,952 5 computer technology, the Examiner determines that “[i]n Klinger, the ‘cooperative flight method’ is the way in which two vehicles cooperate to complete a common task, and as such, is equivalent to a ‘mode’.” Id. The Examiner then looks to various actions performed by two aircrafts cooperating to attack a target shown in Figures 10 and 11 of Klinger, and “draw[s] equivalencies between the ‘cooperative flight method’ and any of the claimed autonomous strategy modes.” Id. (citing Klinger ¶ 55). Here, however, the term mode is properly defined as “[t]he operational state of a computer or a program,”3 when interpreted in view of the Specification. The Specification describes “strategy modes for autonomous vehicle operations” (Spec. ¶ 26 (emphasis added)), for example “an autonomous vehicle 305 operating in a preventative strategy mode” (id. ¶ 59 (emphasis added)), and that an “autonomous vehicle may select a new strategy mode” (id. ¶ 94). Appellant’s Specification describes the same example scenario in which “the autonomous vehicle and the second vehicle are facing each other at an intersection having a four way stop sign,” and under each strategy mode (e.g., permissive, assistive, or preventative) or operational state, the autonomous vehicle alters its actions differently. See Spec. ¶¶ 28–30. For instance, the autonomous vehicle in a permissive strategy mode continues “current actions without change” and allows the second vehicle to make a left turn (Spec. ¶ 28), in an assistive strategy mode the autonomous vehicle may stop and wait or decelerate until the second vehicle completes its turn (id. ¶ 29), and in a preventative strategy mode the autonomous vehicle may block the roadway to prevent the second vehicle 3 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 344 (5th Ed., 2002). Appeal 2020-002330 Application 15/673,952 6 from making a left turn (id. ¶ 30). In other words, those corresponding available actions of the autonomous vehicles depend on each of the various autonomous strategy modes, and are “based at least in part on the selected strategy mode, in which one or more actions may be selected for the autonomous vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 93. The Examiner’s finding that “it is apparent that Klinger implicitly teaches potential available actions for the ‘cooperative flight’ method example, as well as the rank/role and teaming disclosure” and that those actions show multiple modes (Ans. 10), does not properly consider and give effect to the claim term mode as an operational state as construed consistent with Appellant’s Specification. In other words, the Examiner’s interpretation of the term mode and corresponding implicit findings in Klinger as equivalent to examples of potential actions in each of the various modes described in the Specification renders the claim limitation “each of the plurality of autonomous strategy modes comprises a respective set of available actions of the plurality of autonomous ground-based vehicles” meaningless. As our reviewing court has emphasized, “[c]laims must be ‘interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.’” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). See also In re Power Integrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (A “problem with the board’s claim construction is that it renders claim language meaningless.”). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Klinger, and independent claims 5 and 18, which recite a similar limitation and are rejected based on the same flawed claim Appeal 2020-002330 Application 15/673,952 7 interpretation. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–4, 6–17, 19, and 20. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”). CONCLUSION The decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Klinger 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation