One of the hard things about patent drafting and prosecution is that it can be very difficult to predict where a future dispute with an examiner will arise. There are hundred or possibly even thousand of words used just in the claims, any one or combination of which can be the source of a dispute. Even mundane words can be, and often are, at issue. As we saw in a recent post (here), the dispute was over the term “layer.” Today, the dispute is over the term “mode” (Appeal 2020-002330, Application 15/673,952).

Specifically, this Amazon application relates to coordinating autonomous vehicles. Claim 1 is below:

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.

The application specifically addresses issues with an autonomous vehicle management system that receives information from the autonomous vehicles related to strategy modes, actions, and the environments. Per the Abstract, 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.

Amazon’s approach here was not that any specific action was new, but rather that the prior art did not disclose a plurality of autonomous strategy modes that each comprise a respective set of available actions. By coordinating the modes of the various vehicles with the management system could better achieve a desired goal. While the vehicles were still autonomous, they would use different available actions in the different modes.

To reject the claims, the examiner interpreted “mode” in a way that enabled an easier rejection. Examiners often take this tack, and it usually follows the below, somewhat predictable, approach (of course there are variations):

1. Identify a term in the claims that can be “broadly” construed due to a generic definition

2. Assert that there is no “definition” in the specification

3. Assert that the specification merely provides non-limiting examples

4. Note that it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims

5. Assert that any uses of the term that might be inconsistent with the broad definition do not exclude the broader definition

Here, the examiner used a google search for the definition to assert that the term “mode” was being interpreted as:

a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done (see Google, search term: ‘define mode’).

From there, the examiner used prior art that discussed the way in which two autonomous vehicles cooperate to complete a common task as equivalent to a mode. In this way, the different actions performed by the autonomous vehicles in the prior art each constituted different modes.

While Amazon argued against the Office’s interpretation, it did not specifically provide its own definition. Nevertheless, the PTAB sua sponte looked to the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 344 (5th Ed., 2002), which defined modes in the software context as the operational state of a computer or a program. And because Amazon’s specification defined the strategy modes for atonomous vehicle operations that “operated in” a particular mode, the PTAB concluded that a proper interpretation of the claim term, even under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, would not encompass the cited prior art.

So, it is important to push back on Examiner's citations to dictionary definitions that are not consistent with the use of the terms in the specification. To the extend there is a battle of the dictionaries, context is key. Also, if the examiner cites a dictionary and the Applicant is silent, not all PTAB panels can be counted on to consider more appropriate definitions.