DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 19, 2022. Claims 1 – 14 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 1 recite a method, and the body of claim 1 positively recites a series of method steps. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a process.
Does claim 8 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recite a system. The body of claim 8 recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed system. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1 – 14 recite a judicial exception? Yes. Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 13 recite language directed to mental processes (2019 PEG: concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The offending limitations include:
“detect points each estimated as a lane line in a lidar data, [and] . . . estimating parameters of a mathematical model using the detected points” (claims 1 and 8);
“. . . instructions implemented to estimate parameters of a mathematical model using the sampled points” (claims 2 and 9);
“repeatedly perform . . . the estimation operation . . . a predetermined number of times . . .” (claim 3 and 10);
“assign[ing] a higher score as the distances between each of the detected points and the mathematical model in which the parameters are estimated are shorter” (claims 4 and 11);
“identify symmetry of the detected points based on an arbitrary line with respect to the detected points . . .” (claims 5 and 12);
“identify the symmetry of the detected points based on the arbitrary line with respect to the detected points are implemented to: classify the detected points into first points positioned above the arbitrary line and second points positioned below the arbitrary line based on the arbitrary line; overlap the first points and the second points and determine whether thicknesses of the first points and the second points are greater than or equal to a predetermined length; and when it is determined that the thicknesses of the overlapping first points and second points are greater than or equal to the predetermined length, determine that the detected points have no symmetry” (claims 6 and 13).
The detecting, estimating, assigning, identifying, classifying, overlapping, and determining limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor; and a memory in which instructions executed by the processor are stored” nothing in the claim precludes the detecting, estimating, assigning, identifying, classifying, overlapping, and determining steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the “processor; and a memory” language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform all of the aforementioned steps. As such, these limitations are considered mental processes.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7 – 10, 12 and 14, either solely and/or additionally, recite language directed to mathematical concepts (2019 PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations or assigning a specific value, configuration, or state to a parameter or element). The offending limitations include:
“perform[ing] a setting operation of calculating distances between each of the detected points and the mathematical model in which the parameters are estimated and setting the calculated distances as scores, perform[ing] a summation operation of summing the scores, and set[ting] the mathematical model having the highest summation score as a lane line” (claims 1 and 8);
“performing, a sampling operation of randomly sampling points from the detected points” (claims 2 and 9);
“repeatedly perform the sampling operation, . . . the setting operation, and the summation operation a predetermined number of times and finding parameters of the mathematical model having a highest summation score, wherein instructions implemented to set the mathematical model having the highest summation score as the lane line” (claims 3 and 10);
“when the symmetry of the detected points is not identified, instructions implemented to assign a weight to the points detected in front of the lidar sensor, calculate distances between each of the detected points and the mathematical model in which the parameters are estimated, multiply the points by the calculated distances, and set results obtained by multiplication as the scores” (claims 5 and 12); and
“instructions implemented to divide a region including the detected points each estimated as the lane line into grids at regular intervals; instructions implemented to average positions of the points included in each of the grids and set the averaged positions as average points; and instructions implemented to perform a sampling operation of randomly sampling the points from the average points” (claims 7 and 14).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1 – 14 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 1 – 14 recite two additional elements: “a processor; and a memory in which instructions executed by the processor are stored”. These remaining elements, viewed either individually and in combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Why: (1) the processor and memory are each recited at a high level of generality; (2) the claims do not recite any improvements to the processor or memory; (3) there are no other machines recited beyond the generic processor and memory; and (4) the claims do not recite the transformation of any articles, including the processor or memory. The recited instructions/operations/steps by the processor and memory solely perform mental concepts and elementary math—all without meaningful limitations that tie the abstract mental concept or calculation to a particular machine configuration or effect a transformation. Accordingly, these claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application. As such, claims 1 – 14 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1 – 14 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. As such, claims 1 – 14 are considered ineligible.
Therefore, claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent toapplicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0142067 A1 to Wang et al. discloses a system (200) for detecting a lane line based on lidar data (see FIG. 16 and ¶42 for “a block diagram of a lane stripe detecting system 200 based on a three-dimensional LIDAR”), the system (200) comprising a computing device (140), wherein the computing device (140) includes: a processor (140)(see ¶31, where “the point cloud processing unit 140 may be a personal computer, an electronic control unit (ECU), a microprocessor, a mobile device or other electronic controllers for use in the vehicle”); and a memory (140) in which instructions executed by the processor are stored, and the instructions are implemented to: detect points each estimated as a lane line in a lidar data (see ¶28, where “[t]he lane stripe detecting method 100 based on the three-dimensional LIDAR includes the data acquisition transforming step S12”; see also ¶29, where “[t]he data acquisition transforming step S12 is for obtaining a plurality of three-dimensional LIDAR scan point coordinates (x′,y′,z′) of the road surface 120 via the three-dimensional LIDAR sensor 130. The three-dimensional LIDAR sensor 130 is disposed on the vehicle 110 and corresponding to the three-dimensional LIDAR scan point coordinates (x′,y′,z′). Then, the data acquisition transforming step S12 is for transforming the three-dimensional LIDAR scan point coordinates (x′,y′,z′) into a plurality of vehicle scan point coordinates (x,y,z) according to a coordinate transformation equation. The vehicle scan point coordinates (x,y,z) are corresponding to the vehicle 110 and divided into a plurality of scan lines L(α), and each of the scan lines L(α) has a plurality of scan points P(α,i)”), and performing an estimation operation of estimating parameters of a mathematical model using the detected points (see ¶37, where “[a] mathematical model applied to the lane stripe may be a first-order linear equation, a second-order parabolic equation, a second-order hyperbolic equation or a third-order equation).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666