DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 11/26/2025 for application number 17/653,642. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Applicant’s Remarks, and Amendments.
Examiner Notes the following: Claims 1, 12, 14, 17-19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 11, and 15-16 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are pending.
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 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 1, 4-10,and 12-13 are 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 1, the limitation of “autonomously driving a vehicle using the sensor” is not clearly described in the specification. The specification may disclose receiving data from the sensors but not explicitly used for autonomously driving the vehicle. Additionally, See Response to Arguments and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 4-10 and 12-13, the claims effectively depends on claim 1 and are rejected for the reasons given above.
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 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium” encompasses signals per se. The specification discloses that “the terms “tangible” and “non-transitory,” as used herein are intended to describe a computer-readable storage medium (or “memory”) excluding propagating electromagnetic signals but are not intended to otherwise limit the type of physical computer-readable storage device…” See paragraphs 73 and 74 of the specification. However, the exclusion of only one type of propagating signals is not excluding all types of propagating signals. For example, the specification at least does not exclude propagating acoustic signals i.e. sonar, echolocation systems, and sound waves. See Lynch (NPL: “Mining soundwaves: Researchers unlock new data in sonar signals”) and Cho et al. (NPL: “An acoustic data transmission system based on audio data hiding: method and performance evaluation”). A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(II). Accordingly, Claims 14-19 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. For purposes of examination, claims 14-19 will be considered to exclude all signals per se.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claims 1, 4-10, 12-13 recite a method and, therefore, is a process. Claims 14, and 17-19 recites a tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium and, therefore, is an article of manufacture. Claim 20 recite a device and, therefore, is a machine.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A method, comprising:
automatically determining and using noise statistics of noisy observation data, provided by at least one sensor connected to a tracker, to improve tracking of a time-varying object across a scene using a Kalman algorithm, said Kalman algorithm enabling an estimation of dynamic parameters of the object and providing a precision of said estimation from said noisy observation data and from a corrected previous estimation, wherein automatically determining and using the noise statistics comprises:
receiving reference data from a data source external to the Kalman algorithm and connected to the tracker wherein said reference data relates to the scene from which the noisy observation data is received with the sensor and is used to calibrate the tracker;
deriving, from said reference data comprising annotated observation data received from the data source, said noise statistics reflecting errors made by the sensor, wherein deriving the noise statistics from the reference data includes comparing said reference data with the noisy observation data provided by the sensor;
using said noise statistics as setting parameters of the Kalman algorithm.
wherein said sensor reports a confidence value that is in relationship with a probability that noisy observation data is correct or accurate, and the method further comprises:
using said confidence value as weighting parameter applied to said noisy observation data via an observation noise further inputted in the Kalman algorithm; and
autonomously driving a vehicle using the sensor.
The above underlined limitations are related to processing sensor data using the Kalman algorithm which amount to mathematical relationships and calculations (see specification paragraphs 2-5, 27-40, 43-70 figures 4-7). Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 1 recites the following additional elements: “provided by at least one sensor connected to a tracker”, “receiving reference data from a data source external to the Kalman algorithm and connected to the tracker” and “autonomously driving a vehicle using the sensor“. However, the additional elements of sensor, tracker, data source, and vehicle are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for providing data; as a generic computer component for processing data; as a generic computer component for storing data; and as a generic component for processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “provided by at least one sensor connected to a tracker”, and “receiving reference data from a data source external to the Kalman algorithm and connected to the tracker“ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. “autonomously driving a vehicle using the sensor” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, using sensor data. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of sensor, tracker, data source, and vehicle are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for providing data; as a generic computer component for processing data; as a generic computer component for storing data; and as a generic component for processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “provided by at least one sensor connected to a tracker”, and “receiving reference data from a data source external to the Kalman algorithm and connected to the tracker“ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. “autonomously driving a vehicle using the sensor” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, using sensor data. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claims 4-10, and 12-13 recite further steps and details to processing sensor data using the Kalman algorithm which amount to mathematical relationships and calculations and falls within the “mathematical Concepts” and/or “mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas
Claim 4, is directed to a probability i.e. a mathematical relationship used in the mathematical operation. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5, is directed to using the probability i.e. a mathematical relationship to be considered in the mathematical operation. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6, is directed to the outputting the probability and applying a mathematical operation to determine the error parameter. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7, is directed to processing the set of reference data to produce the probabilities and calculating error covariance. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional element: a detector. However, the additional element of a detector is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for providing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a detector is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for providing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8. Is directed to the calculation of the covariance of the measured data which is part of the Kalman algorithm process. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9, is directed to the data formats used in the Kalman algorithm. Claim 10, is directed to using the covariance as input to the Kalman algorithm. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Claim 12, is directed to using a regression model to produce error values used in noise statistics. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 13, is directed to using a regression model based on a scatterplot based on object detections which is based on errors and confidence values. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 14 recites
A tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for causing a processor to automatically determine and use noise statistics of noisy observation data received from at least one sensor to improve tracking of a time-varying object across a scene, the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to automatically determine the noise statistics by executing a Kalman algorithm configured to enable an estimation of dynamic parameters of the object and to provide a precision of said estimation from said noisy observation data and from a corrected previous estimation obtained by:
receiving reference data from a data source external to the Kalman algorithm and connected to the processor, wherein said reference data relates to the scene from which the noisy observation data is received with the sensor;
deriving, from said reference data comprising annotated observation data received from the data source, said noise statistics reflecting errors made by the sensor, wherein deriving the noise statistics from the reference data includes comparing said reference data with the noisy observation data provided by the sensor; and
using said noise statistics as setting parameters of the Kalman algorithm,
wherein said sensor reports a confidence value that is in relationship with a probability that noisy observation data is correct or accurate, and
wherein said confidence value is a weighting parameter applied to said noisy observation data via an observation noise further inputted in the Kalman algorithm.
The above underlined limitations are related to processing sensor data using the Kalman algorithm which amount to mathematical relationships and calculations (see specification paragraphs 2-5, 27-40, 43-70 figures 4-7). Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 1 recites the following additional elements: “A tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for causing a processor”, “received from at least one sensor”, and “receiving reference data from a data source external to the Kalman algorithm…“. However, the additional elements of sensor, tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, processor and data source are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for providing data; as a generic computer component for storing instructions; as a generic computer component for processing data; and as a generic computer component for storing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “comprising instructions“, “received from at least one sensor”, and “receiving reference data from a data source external to the Kalman algorithm …“ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of sensor, tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, processor and data source are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for providing data; as a generic computer component for storing instructions; as a generic computer component for processing data; and as a generic computer component for storing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “comprising instructions“, “received from at least one sensor”, and “receiving reference data from a data source external to the Kalman algorithm …“ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 17-19 corresponds to claims 4-5 and 8 respectively. A mere change in statutory class is obvious. Claims 17-19 are rejected for the reasons given above for claims 4-5 and 8 respectively.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 20 recites
A device providing a tracker of a vehicle, the device comprising:
a first communication interface for connecting at least one sensor providing noisy observation data;
a second communication interface for receiving reference data from an external data source, wherein said reference data comprises annotated observation data;
and a processing unit configured to automatically determine and use noise statistics of the noisy observation data to improve tracking of a time-varying object across a scene wherein said reference data relates to the scene from which the noisy observation data is provided by the sensor, the processing unit configured to automatically determine the noise statistics by executing a Kalman algorithm stored by the processing unit,
the Kalman algorithm configured to enable an estimation of dynamic parameters of the object and to provide a precision of said estimation from said noisy observation data and from a corrected previous estimation by:
deriving, from said reference data, said noise statistics reflecting errors made by the sensor, wherein deriving the noise statistics from the reference data includes comparing said reference data with the noisy observation data provided by the sensor; and
using said noise statistics as setting parameters of the Kalman algorithm,
wherein said sensor reports a confidence value that is in relationship with a probability that noisy observation data is correct or accurate, and
wherein said confidence value is a weighting parameter applied to said noisy observation data via an observation noise further inputted in the Kalman algorithm.
The above underlined limitations are related to processing sensor data using the Kalman algorithm which amount to mathematical relationships and calculations (see specification paragraphs 2-5, 27-40, 43-70 figures 4-7). Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 1 recites the following additional elements: “a first communication interface for connecting at least one sensor providing noisy observation data”, “a second communication interface for receiving reference data from an external data source”, and “a processing unit configured to”. However, the additional elements of sensor, a first and second communication interface, processing unit and data source are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for providing data; as a generic computer component for transmitting/receiving data; as a generic computer component for processing data; and as a generic computer component for storing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “providing noisy observation data “, and “receiving reference data from an external data source” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of sensor, a first and second communication interface, processing unit and data source are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for providing data; as a generic computer component for transmitting/receiving data; as a generic computer component for processing data; and as a generic computer component for storing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “providing noisy observation data “, and “receiving reference data from an external data source” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to Objections to the Drawings and Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objections to the Drawings and Specification of the Office Action mailed 08/27/2025 (hereinafter Prior Office Action) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the Prior Office Action has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 14, the applicant argues that “tangible non-transitory computer-readable medium” excluding propagating electromagnetic signals would not otherwise limit the type of physical computer-readable storage devices. However, it is not apparent how the amendment would address the rejection that was made. Examiner has explained in the Prior Office Action that while the applicant excluded propagating electromagnetic signals, the specification does not exclude at least sonar, echolocation systems, and sound waves. While electromagnetic signals are based on protons, at least sound is an effect of matter and is tangible, and therefore this amendment does not seem to exclude the types of signals as identified above in the rejection in 35 U.S.C. 101. Similarly can also be applied to sonar. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion to the contrary for at least the reason above and the rejection for 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Regarding applicant’s argument directed to the Alice Framework, applicant argues that the claims recites significantly more than any allege abstract idea using their method. However, the argument is directed to an improvement that comes from the abstract idea, and relies on features not recited in the rejected claims. The improvement can not come from the abstract idea itself, and the idea to receive the data is merely insignificant extra solution activity. Furthermore the additional limitation of “autonomously driving a vehicle” is merely linking to a generic technological field or environment. The applicant has not explained how the additional elements would integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion to the contrary for at least the reason above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenny K. Bui whose telephone number is (571)270-0604. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Monday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on Tuesday to Friday ET.
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, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571)272-3702. 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.
/KENNY K. BUI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)270-0604
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182