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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Final Rejection office action in response to application Serial No. 17/980,103. Claim(s) 1-6 and 21-23 have been examined and fully considered.
Claim(s) 7-20 were previously canceled without prejudice.
Claim(s) 21-23 are presently canceled.
Claim(s) 24-25 have been added.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 24-25 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of has PRO 63/263,518 filed 11/04/2021.
Response to Arguments/Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 2/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) of pending application.
I. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 /103
Regarding claims 1-6 and 21-23 under 35 USC § 102/103 have been fully considered and persuasive. The claim(s) 1-6 and 21-23 under 35 USC § 102/103 has been withdrawn.
II. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Per remarks, Applicant states that “claims 1-6 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being as being an abstract idea without being significantly more. See Office Action dated 08/06/2025 at p. 2. Applicant has amended the claims, obviating the rejection. At the very least, the steps of displaying the target datapoints on a screen or printing the target datapoints on a printer are not an abstract ideas, which can performed in the mind.”,
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the step directed to step
“displaying…” is determined to be an additional element, which merely amounts to post-solution activity, which does not represent an integration of said abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35 USC § 101 rejection of record.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 based on the following analysis because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 24-25 are directed to a method (process), system, and a non-transitory storage medium, respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis
in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One,
examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations (see bolded) below:
A method for conducting background filtering on roadside LiDAR sensor data comprising: receiving, by a computer processor of a computer from a roadside LiDAR sensor, raw LiDAR sensor data;
decoding, by the computer processor, the raw LiDAR sensor data into 3D distance data, azimuth angle data and vertical angle data;
generating, by the computer processor, a background table of datapoints utilizing the azimuth angle data and elevation data;
comparing, by the computer processor, the 3D distance data to the datapoints comprising the background table;
determining, by the computer processor based on the comparisons, static background object datapoints; and
discarding, by the computer processor, the static background object datapoints;
determining, by the computer processor based on the comparisons, dynamic background object datapoints;
discarding, by the computer processor, the dynamic background object datapoints;
determining, by the computer processor based on the comparisons, target datapoints;
storing, by the computer processor in a storage device, the target datapoints; and
displaying the target datapoints on a screen or printing the target datapoints on a printer.
Claim 4 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A traffic data processing computer for conducting background filtering on LiDAR sensor data comprising:
a traffic data processor;
a communication device operably connected to the traffic data processor; and
a storage device operably connected to the traffic data processor, wherein the storage device stores processor executable instructions which when executed cause the traffic data processor to:
receive raw LiDAR sensor data from a roadside LiDAR sensor;
decode the raw LiDAR sensor data into 3D distance data, azimuth angle data and vertical angle data;
generate a background table of datapoints utilizing the azimuth angle data and elevation data; compare the 3D distance data to the datapoints comprising the background table;
determine static background object datapoints based on the comparisons;
discard the static background object datapoints;
determine dynamic background object datapoints based on the comparisons;
discard the dynamic background object datapoints;
determine target datapoints based on the comparisons;
store the target datapoints in a storage device; and
displaying the target datapoints on a screen or printing the target datapoints on a printer.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and
paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, other than reciting that the steps
are performed by computing elements (e.g., a processor), at this level of breadth, nothing in the
claimed limitations precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the
human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (i.e. determining..., etc.). The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These limitations, as drafted, also recite processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships (e.g., decoding sensor data, generating a table, etc.) and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of (see underlined portions below):
A method for conducting background filtering on roadside LiDAR sensor data comprising:
receiving, by a computer processor of a computer from a roadside LiDAR sensor, raw LiDAR sensor data;
decoding, by the computer processor, the raw LiDAR sensor data into 3D distance data, azimuth angle data and vertical angle data;
generating, by the computer processor, a background table of datapoints utilizing the azimuth angle data and elevation data;
comparing, by the computer processor, the 3D distance data to the datapoints comprising the background table;
determining, by the computer processor based on the comparisons, static background object datapoints; and
discarding, by the computer processor, the static background object datapoints;
determining, by the computer processor based on the comparisons, dynamic background object datapoints;
discarding, by the computer processor, the dynamic background object datapoints;
determining, by the computer processor based on the comparisons, target datapoints;
storing, by the computer processor in a storage device, the target datapoints; and
displaying the target datapoints on a screen or printing the target datapoints on a printer.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of:
Claim 4 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A traffic data processing computer for conducting background filtering on LiDAR sensor data comprising:
a traffic data processor;
a communication device operably connected to the traffic data processor; and
a storage device operably connected to the traffic data processor, wherein the storage device stores processor executable instructions which when executed cause the traffic data processor to:
receive raw LiDAR sensor data from a roadside LiDAR sensor;
decode the raw LiDAR sensor data into 3D distance data, azimuth angle data and vertical angle data;
generate a background table of datapoints utilizing the azimuth angle data and elevation data;
compare the 3D distance data to the datapoints comprising the background table;
determine static background object datapoints based on the comparisons; and
discard the static background object datapoints;
storing, by the computer processor in a storage device, the target datapoints; and
displaying the target datapoints on a screen or printing the target datapoints on a printer.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The data processing functions of the “computer processor”; “traffic data processor”; “communication device”, “storage device,”; and “non-transitory computer-readable medium,” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. In addition, each of these aforementioned additional elements indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally and/or alternatively, the transmitting/receiving/displaying/printing/storing functions of the “computer processor”; “computer processor”; “traffic data processor”; “communication device,” “storage device”; “LiDAR sensor”, “a screen” and “ a printer are considered extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitations of “storing, by the computer processor in a storage device, the target datapoints; and displaying the target datapoints on a screen or printing the target datapoints on a printer” these limitations mount to post-solution activity (e.g., the provision of information on a display, as described in page 45 of the specification).
In addition, each of these aforementioned additional elements indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the data processing functions of the “computer processor”; “traffic data processor”; “communication device”, “storage device,” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). As discussed above, each of these additional limitations amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the functions of the transmitting/receiving/displaying/printing/storing functions of the “computer processor”; “computer processor”; “traffic data processor”; “communication device,” “storage device” and LiDAR sensor are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. The Versata and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
In addition, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2-3, and 5-6 further characterizes the target datapoints, which appears to be just displaying information. Examiner submits that this limitation represent extra-solution (post-solution) activities.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, and 24-25 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the previously identified judicial exception and/or aforementioned additional elements that were identified as well-understood, routine and conventional in the analysis above. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, and 5-6, and 24-25 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1, and 4.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-6, and 24-25 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-6, and 24-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, however, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
WAN, Xian-fu (CN113176546A; the NPL citations are based on the provided English Translation) hereinafter, referred to as “Wan”, teaches filtering background of a roadside radar in real time based on NURBS modeling, wherein a road space is geometrically modeled based on NURBS, the road space monitored by the radar is surrounded and closed by a geometric model, point cloud in the geometric model is reserved for a detection object, and point cloud outside the geometric model is used as background filtering.
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 BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663