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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the applicant claims that the limitations provide improvements to the functioning of a computer and the additional elements of “performing object tracking using a LiDAR sensor, and controlling a vehicle to avoid target objects(s) such as other vehicles,” is linked to a particular technological environment. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As an example, the amendment of “controlling, by the processor, the vehicle based on the determined shape flag of the object,” when referenced with the spec, fails to amount to significantly more than extra solution activity. The specification fails to support the amended claim as controlling of the vehicle is left to BRI, and in doing so, could be interpreted merely as lighting an led or operating the windshield wipers. The specification, as well as the claim language implies obstacle/target vehicle avoidance for an automated vehicle, but could not be determined due to lack disclosure in the specification. For this reason, the examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Examiner notes that In LiDAR technology and autonomous driving, I-shape, L-shape, and sL-shape refer to geometric bounding box models used to simplify and track objects from 3D point clouds. Because sparse LiDAR points often do not provide a complete outline of a vehicle, algorithms use these shapes to estimate the vehicle's position, orientation, and dimensions.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 1 of the Abstract discloses “the present disclosure relates to.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a shape analysis unit configured to analyze a shape of the target; a layer shape determination unit configured to determine a shape flag for each of the first to Mth layers by use of at least a part of LiDAR points; and a target shape determination unit configured to determine a shape flag of the target object by use of the shape flags determined for the layers and the confidence scores in claim 18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation in parenthesis “(M is an integer of 2 or greater).” The limitations in parenthesis may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim because it is not clear whether the limitations in parenthesis are in fact a limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a LiDAR sensor mounted on the vehicle, a plurality of layers of LiDAR points for an object around the vehicle, wherein each of the plurality of layers includes LiDAR point data of the object at its corresponding position on a vertical axis;
determining, by a processor mounted in the vehicle, a shape flag for each layer of the plurality of layers by use of at least a part of LiDAR points thereon according to a plurality of predetermined shape types;
calculating, by the processor, a confidence score for the shape flag determined for each layer of the plurality of layers by use of the at least part of LiDAR points;
determining, by the processor, a shape flag of the object by use of the shape flags determined for the plurality of layers and the confidence scores; and
controlling, by the processor, the vehicle based on the determined shape flag of the object.
Claim 18 recites:
An object tracking device for controlling a vehicle, the object tracking device comprising: a LiDAR sensor configured to obtain first to Mth (M is an integer of 2 or greater) layers of LiDAR points for a target object around the vehicle, wherein each of the first to Mth layers includes LiDAR point data of the target object at its corresponding position on a vertical axis; and a shape analysis unit configured to analyze a shape of the target, wherein the shape analysis unit comprises: a layer shape determination unit configured to determine a shape flag for each of the first to Mth layers by use of at least a part of LiDAR points thereon according to a plurality of predetermined shape types, and calculate a confidence score for the shape flag determined for each layer by use of the at least part of LiDAR points; and a target shape determination unit configured to determine a shape flag of the target object by use of the shape flags determined for the layers and the confidence scores.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “calculate a confidence score for the shape flag determined for each layer by use of the at least part of LiDAR points;” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “ analyze a shape of the target, determine a shape flag for each of the first to Mth layers by use of at least a part of LiDAR points thereon according to a plurality of predetermined shape types; determine a shape flag of the target object by use of the shape flags determined for the layers and the confidence scores ” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 18: steps of “calculating, by the processor, a confidence score for the shape flag determined for each layer of the plurality of layers by use of the at least part of LiDAR points;” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “determining, by a processor mounted in the vehicle, a shape flag for each layer of the plurality of layers by use of at least a part of LiDAR points thereon according to a plurality of predetermined shape types; determining, by the processor, a shape flag of the object by use of the shape flags determined for the plurality of layers and the confidence scores” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 18: object tracking device, shape analysis unit, layer shape determination unit, and target shape determination unit
The additional element of “obtaining a plurality of layers of LiDAR points for the object by use of the LiDAR; controlling, by the processor, the vehicle based on the determined shape flag of the object; obtain first to Mth (M is an integer of 2 or greater) layers of LiDAR points for a target object around the vehicle, wherein each of the first to Mth layers includes LiDAR point data of the target object at its corresponding position on a vertical axis” represents a mere data gathering/outputting step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-17 and 19 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if written overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Kaithakauzha teaches receiving three-dimensional (3D) point data and two-dimensional (2D) image data representing a field of view including a target object and an object volume prediction circuit configured to determine a predicted volume occupied by the target object within the 3D point data based on the 3D point data and the 2D image data [0005]. The object volume prediction circuit is further configured to analyze the 2D image data utilizing a plurality of neural network models, wherein the plurality of neural network models are configured to generate respective 2D bounding boxes for the target object based on the 2D image data [0006]. Kaithakauzha also teaches confidence score of the bounding box and whether its classification of the type of object is correct [0073].
Wu teaches L-shape fitting [0017] and the LiDAR sensor mounted to a vehicle [0007], but along with Kaithakauzha and all other references, fails to teach a method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising: obtaining, by a LiDAR sensor mounted on the vehicle [0007]a plurality of layers of LiDAR points for an object around the vehicle, wherein each of the plurality of layers includes LiDAR point data of the object at its corresponding position on a vertical axis; determining, by a processor mounted in the vehicle, a shape flag for each layer of the plurality of layers by use of at least a part of LiDAR points thereon according to a plurality of predetermined shape types; calculating, by the processor, a confidence score for the shape flag determined for each layer of the plurality of layers by use of the at least part of LiDAR points; and determining, by the processor, a shape flag of the object by use of the shape flags determined for the plurality of layers and the confidence scores; and controlling, by the processor, the vehicle based on the determined shape flag of the object.
It is for this reason, Claim 1 and all of its dependencies, would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 18, Kaithakauzha teaches receiving three-dimensional (3D) point data and two-dimensional (2D) image data representing a field of view including a target object and an object volume prediction circuit configured to determine a predicted volume occupied by the target object within the 3D point data based on the 3D point data and the 2D image data [0005]. The object volume prediction circuit is further configured to analyze the 2D image data utilizing a plurality of neural network models, wherein the plurality of neural network models are configured to generate respective 2D bounding boxes for the target object based on the 2D image data [0006]. Kaithakauzha also teaches confidence score of the bounding box and whether its classification of the type of object is correct [0073].
Wu teaches L-shape fitting [0017] and the LiDAR sensor mounted to a vehicle [0007], but along with Kaithakauzha and all other references fail to teach an object tracking device for controlling a vehicle, the object tracking device comprising: a LiDAR sensor configured to obtain first to Mth (M is an integer of 2 or greater) layers of LiDAR points for a target object around the vehicle, wherein each of the first to Mth layers includes LiDAR point data of the target object at its corresponding position on a vertical axis; and a shape analysis unit configured to analyze a shape of the target, wherein the shape analysis unit comprises: a layer shape determination unit configured to determine a shape flag for each of the first to Mth layers by use of at least a part of LiDAR points thereon according to a plurality of predetermined shape types, and calculate a confidence score for the shape flag determined for each layer by use of the at least part of LiDAR points; and a target shape determination unit configured to determine a shape flag of the target object by use of the shape flags determined for the layers and the confidence scores.
It is for this reason, Claim 18 and all of its dependencies, would be allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Sun et al. (LIDAR 3D Design Using A Polygon Mirror, 2021-02-23) teaches a LIDAR device of an autonomous driving vehicle (ADV) includes an array of light emitters to emit a number of light beams to sense a physical range associated with a target. The LIDAR device further includes a prism-shaped mirror assembly having a plurality of joining faces acting as reflective surfaces and a bottom base face. The rotatable platform is configured to rotate with respect to a vertical axis perpendicular to the bottom base face. The light emitters are configured to project the light beams onto the reflective surfaces of the mirror assembly, which are deflected towards the target. The mirror assembly rotates along with the rotatable platform while the array of light emitters remains steady. The LIDAR device further includes one or more light detectors to receive at least a portion of the light beams reflected from the target.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights