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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the RCE filed on 9/17/2025. This application, filed on 5/17/2022 is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/CN2020/111345, filed on 8/26/2020, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 201911129500.4, filed on 11/18/2019.
This action is made Non-Final.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are pending in this case.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent claims.
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, 3-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receiving detection information, determining a moving state of a vehicle, and determining a road constraint.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are directed to the limitations of receiving detection information, determining a vehicle state, and ascertaining the constraints of a roadway. Receiving detection information, determining a moving state of a vehicle, determining a road geometry, and determining a road constraint as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a vehicle, a radar, a processor with memory, (Claim 11) and a storage medium (Claim 20), nothing claimed precludes the process from being practically performed in the mind. For example, but for the stated elements, a user could observe the road and map in his/her mind a representation of its limits for maintaining the vehicle. The limitations determining the road constraint of the target including a confidence level and a tangent angle are held to be analyzing collected information which constitutes an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements — using “an apparatus”, “ a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store programming instructions,” and “ a computer-readable storage medium having computer executable instructions,” a currently driving vehicle, a radar, and detection information. The processor and apparatus that perform the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of collecting information and analyzing the information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The recited radar is analogous to using generic computer components in a generic way, as it is recited at high level of generality, and does not provide a technical improvement or novel configuration. Nothing in the claim language integrates the determined road geometry or computing components to the vehicle in a practical way (such as controlling said vehicle). The storage medium likewise, merely holds generic instructions. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the practicing of the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea, and the additional elements are similar to those previously found by the courts to be not significantly more than the judicial exception, such as, without limitation: (1) collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis(Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). More specifically, given the broadest reasonable interpretation: “determining a moving state,” and “detecting information” are no more than collecting information; “determining a road constraint” by utilizing a novel set of formulas teaches no more than analyzing the collected information; and stating that this happens in “a currently driving vehicle” without further description of what actions said vehicle may execute as a result of this analysis, fails to even teach displaying results of computation, which would still not constitute significantly more than an abstract idea under current guidance. (See Id.) The limitation wherein the geometry of the road is based on three distinct types of curvature, encompassing all possible types of road variance, utilizing specific formulas with varying degrees of polynomials based upon said curvature types, must also be viewed as consistent with analyzing collected information, and not significantly more than an abstract idea. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims are therefore not patent eligible
Regarding Claim 3, the use of tangent direction angles to assist in make the determination of the road geometry also constitutes an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. No additional elements are integrated that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea presented in this claim and its parent claims.
Regarding Claim 4, the use of multiple distance ranges to assist in make the determination of the road geometry also constitutes an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. No additional elements are integrated that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea presented in this claim and its parent claims.
Regarding Claim 5, the use of multiple distances and multiple road geometries to select a particular geometry also constitutes an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. No additional elements are integrated that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea presented in this claim and its parent claims.
Regarding Claim 6, the use of a second location to assist in the determination of a road geometry also constitutes an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. No additional elements are integrated that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea presented in this claim and its parent claims.
Regarding Claim 7, the use of multiple confidence levels to assist in the determination of a road geometry also constitutes an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. No additional elements are integrated that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea presented in this claim and its parent claims.
Regarding Claim 8, the use of tangent angles in association with determining a confidence level to assist in the determination of a road geometry also constitutes an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. No additional elements are integrated that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea presented in this claim and its parent claims.
Regarding Claim 9, the use of weight values of tangent angles in association with determining a confidence level to assist in the determination of a road geometry also constitutes an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. No additional elements are integrated that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea presented in this claim and its parent claims.
Regarding Claim 10, the use of further permutations of tangent angles in association with determining a confidence level to assist in the determination of a road geometry also constitutes an abstract idea for the reasons stated above. No additional elements are integrated that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea presented in this claim and its parent claims.
Regarding Claim 21, the use of a conventional millimeter-wave radar to gather detection information by transmitting electromagnetic waves does not represent an improvement to the technology itself, nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites data gathering and processing steps using known technology in a conventional manner, which is not patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 13-19 and 22 similarly do not add additional elements are integrated that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea presented in Claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at p.10 of applicant’s remarks that the use of “at least one radar” means the claims are not directed to a mental process and cannot be performed in the human mind, since they use a physical device, and asserts that a radar is not a generic computer component.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that utilizing generic computer components to perform a concept does not preclude the concept from being held as a mental process. See MPEP. 2104.04(a)(2)(III)(C) – “if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” Furthermore, while the claims require “at least one radar” to obtain detection information, the radar is recited at a high level of generality, without any specific improvement or novel configuration. The claims merely require a conventional radar device to collect data—a function that is routine and well-understood in the automotive and sensor fields. Reciting the use of known hardware (whether a computer, sensor, or radar) to gather data does not, by itself, render an abstract idea patent-eligible.
Applicant argues at p.11 of applicant’s remarks that the additional elements recited in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, applicant argues that “the claims clearly recite an improvement that the tangent direction angle at a third location is determined as the road direction constraint of the target, the third location is a location closest to the target in a third target road geometry which is a target road geometry closest to the target in the at least one target road geometry, thereby improving target tracking accuracy and road constraint determining accuracy.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement cited (e.g., improved tracking accuracy) is not tied to a specific technical solution or a non-generic technical implementation. The examiner also notes that an alleged improvement in target tracking accuracy and road constraint determining accuracy is not an improvement in “the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field.” See MPEP 2106.05(a) – “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Moreover, in this case, the alleged improvements are part of the abstract idea itself. The examiner maintains that the determinations that allegedly provide an improvement are themselves mental processes. As recited in MPEP 2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
Lastly, applicant argues at p.14 that "determining that a tangent direction angle at a third location is the road direction constraint of the target, wherein the third location is a location closest to the target in a third target road geometry, and the third target road geometry is a target road geometry closest to the target in the at least one target road geometry" provides an inventive concept and therefore amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation at issue is considered part of the abstract idea, for reasons explained above.
Therefore the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153