Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2020002330 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2020)

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