DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claim 11 lacks proper markings at the “compare” step. The amendment is entered as the intent is clear. Applicant is reminded to ensure markings are compliant with 37 C.F.R. 1.121.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, concluding in the argument spanning pages 12-13 that a neural network comprising processing circuitry that comprises an ASIC is “specific hardware” and performs steps which cannot be performed in the mind. The argument is not persuasive. The ASIC as claimed and described is a generic computer component to perform an abstract idea; this is in significant contrast to the Example 47 cited by Applicant where the claim is directed to an ASIC itself and recites the specific hardware and circuitry of the ASIC. Further, it is noted that the “point cloud” data and image claimed need not be particularly complex so as to preclude mental performance of the idea. That is, while point cloud data from a LIDAR may include vast amounts of data, there is no requirement that this is the case.
At page 14 Applicant argues that he features of claims 1, 11, and 15 demonstrate improvements in computer functionality when applied to the field of autonomous self-driving vehicles by using measurements obtained by the radar and/or lidar sensors to estimate the relative speed of each detected point in order to ease mapping the point cloud to identified objects in the vicinity of the vehicle. The argument is not persuasive at least because the claims make no mention of relative speed. Further, mapping point cloud data to identified objects is found to be an abstract idea in itself, e.g. matching data points to an image without an additional element that provides a practical application of the mapping.
The argument spanning pages 14-15 makes a general statement that “improvements” include a majority of the claimed subject matter from claims 1, 11, and 15. This does not provide any particular argument or reasoning as to the nature of such improvements or explain why these amount to a practical application of the idea.
At pages 15-16 Applicant argues that the additional claimed elements recite a specific and discrete implementation for automatically labeling un-labeled point cloud data obtained by radar and/or lidar sensors in a traffic scenario involving one or more vehicles without using extension processing for object identification in the un-labeled point cloud data. The argument is not persuasive as it is not clear what “additional elements”, i.e. elements in addition to the abstract idea, are being referenced. Further, it is apparent that the solution claimed (labeling radar/lidar data based on auxiliary image data rather than by “extension processing”) represents the idea itself rather than a particular implementation of such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 20-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 15 conclude with a step/function of map/mapping “based on assigning the position measurement values using the auxiliary data, the unlabeled point cloud data to the identified object without processing the unlabeled point cloud data for object detection”. The reference to “assigning the position measurement values using the auxiliary data” appears to refer to the previous limitation of “assign(ing) the position measurement value of the unlabeled point cloud data to the object based on the auxiliary data”, but could also indicate an additional assigning. In either case, it is not clear what it means to map “based on” this assigning, as per the specification (e.g. [0017], [0027], [0052], [0079]), such assigning and mapping are consistently referenced as being the same operation. That is, the metes and bounds of the mapping step cannot be determined, to the extent that this must be “based on” a step that the specification identifies as the mapping itself. If mapping is not intended as a separate step, the requirement that it be “based on” assigning appears to be in error. Clarification is required. Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13-14, 20-26, and 28-30 depend on one of claims 1, 11, and 15 and are likewise indefinite.
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, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 20-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15 recite(s) the limitations:
“identify the object based on the at least one image to obtain an identified object”;
“determining an auxiliary position for the object in the vicinity of the apparatus, wherein the auxiliary position value comprises distance information for the object and direction information for the object”;
“comparing the position measurement value to the auxiliary position value”;
“assigning the position measurement value of the unlabeled point cloud data to the object in the vicinity of the apparatus based on the auxiliary position”;
“assigning the position measurement value to the object based on the auxiliary data for labeling the unlabeled point cloud data”; and
“mapping, based on assigning the position measurement values using the auxiliary data, the unlabeled point cloud data to the identified object without processing the unlabeled point cloud data for object detection.
The steps alone and individually amount to a mental process (an abstract idea), performable in the mind or with pen and paper. It is noted for the purposes of analysis that the two assigning steps and the mapping step are read to amount to the same operation ([0017], [0027], [0052], [0079]), i.e. “mapping” includes nothing more than assigning or matching values to one another. It is also noted that the data need not be particularly complex so as to preclude mental performance.
Having identified an abstract idea, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (a) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 additionally includes:
“implementing, using a machine learning algorithm for object classification and detection, a neural network via processing circuitry comprising an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)” to perform the identification step;
“collecting, by an apparatus, unlabeled point cloud data comprising a position measurement value of a plurality of position measurement values of an object of a plurality of objects of a traffic scenario in a vicinity of the apparatus;” and
“obtaining auxiliary data associated with the object in the vicinity of the apparatus, wherein the auxiliary data comprises at least one image of the object”.
The generic “neural network” using a machine learning algorithm is provided by name only for performing the functions without any indication as to the construction thereof except for a recitation of generic computer hardware implementation (ASIC). The limitation does not provide a practical application of the idea because generically implementing a neural network to identify the object and determining distance and direction information for the object based on the neural network amounts to merely using genetic computer hardware as a tool to perform the abstract mental steps of identifying and determining. A generic ASIC as claimed represents generic computer hardware, having no limitation on the ASIC construction itself.
The “collecting” and “obtaining” steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they recite insignificant extra solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims directed to a “sensing apparatus” and a “vehicle” (comprised only of the same sensing apparatus). The claims recite the same abstract idea as claim 15. The claims include additional element by specifying “one or more processors” which are configured to perform the above obtaining, determining and assigning steps. The claims also require a “radar sensor or a lidar sensor” to perform the collection step.
However, the processor(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the incorporation of the processor amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The indication that the processor(s) implement the algorithm “via processing circuitry comprising an application-specific integrated circuit” likewise amounts to generic computer component implementation as no particular circuitry is identified.
The generic radar or lidar does not integrate the exception into a practical application because the element is merely used in conventional data gathering and amounts to a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III).
Claims 3 and 13 add a camera as the source of the auxiliary data and claims 4, 14, 25-26, and 30 specify generically an omnidirectional or stereoscopic camera. However as above, the limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they amount to mere data gathering using a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity.
The remainder of the claims merely further specify the information being used for the idea (claims 9, 21-24, 29), and/or add additional mental processes (claims 8, 9, 20, 22, 28) and do not add additional elements.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception additionally because the claimed use of conventional radar, lidar, and/or cameras simply adds well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. instant specification background, paragraph [0067], and numerous examples in the cited IDS references), specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception of assigning. Further, merely implementing an exception on generic computer hardware does not transform the exception into “significantly more” than exception itself.
Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations indicative of a practical application of, or amounting to significantly more than, the abstract idea of assigning position measurements to objects based on auxiliary data.
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 Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646