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 .
RCE
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed on April 24, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more has been maintained for the reasons noted below. The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 3-4 by the amendment. Claims 1-2 and 5-14 are pending in the application.
Explanation of Rejection
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1, 2, 5-14: the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A ranging error calculation device comprising:
a laser or a radar, wherein the laser or the radar is configured to generate ranging information;
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire the ranging information in time series with respect to a ranging target point for each of one or more feature information of the ranging target point;
based on the ranging information, generate ranging error distribution information, for the each of one or more feature information, regarding an error distribution in measured distance from a ranging device to the ranging target point;
generate the ranging error distribution information that is information indicative of:
a distribution model of the error distribution; and
a distribution parameter that is a parameter of the distribution; and
a distribution parameter that is a parameter of the distribution model;
use, as the distribution model, a distribution function whose error from statistical information of the ranging information is the smallest among specified plural distribution function;
determine the distribution parameter to be a parameter of the distribution function when the error from the statistical information is the smallest;
upon receiving an external input specifying particular feature information corresponding to a ranging target point from a simulator configured to reproduce a real-world environment on a virtual environment, acquire the ranging error distribution information associated with the particular feature information;
generate a cumulative distribution function of a ranging error from the distribution model and the distribution parameter included in the acquired ranging error distribution information, generate a random number, and determine ranging error information that is a value obtained by inputting the random number to an inverse function of the cumulative distribution function; and
execute a simulation by outputting the ranging error information to the simulator to cause the simulator to reflect an observation error of the ranging device in the virtual environment.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of “generate ranging error distribution…”, “distribution model of the error distribution”, “distribution parameter that is a parameter of the distribution”, “use, as the distribution model, a distribution function whose error from statistical information of the ranging information is the smallest among specified plural distribution function”, “determine the distribution parameter to be a parameter of the distribution function when the error from the statistical information is the smallest; generate a cumulative distribution function of a ranging error from the distribution model and the distribution parameter included in the acquired ranging error distribution information, generate a random number, and determine ranging error information that is a value obtained by inputting the random number to an inverse function of the cumulative distribution function and execute a simulation by outputting ranging error information”. These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, error calculation from the observed data points). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites “a ranging error calculation device”, “a laser or a radar”, “at least one memory”, and “at least one processor”. However, the “laser or radar” are used for data gathering purpose these are generic collection, i.e., data gathering step recited at a high level of generality, and the memory and the processors are generic component that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Further, simulation of data values is generally abstract idea, and is viewed as a mathematical concept or mental process. The instant application is creating simplified model of a real-world system which is considered abstract because it focuses on concept rather than physical, tangible process.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further, the generic processing component is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). The error distribution establishes a field-of-use and broadly recites the “the components to acquire and generate the error distribution’ as an object on which the process operates rather than being a particular machine which implements the process (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: “ranging information in time series with respect to a ranging target point for each of one or more feature information of the ranging target point”, and “a ranging error distribution information, ... ranging error distribution information, for the each of one or more feature information, regarding an error distribution in measured distance from a ranging device to the ranging target point”. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the error distribution that is considered an output. The added or amended limitation includes: “generate a cumulative distribution function of a ranging error from the distribution model and the distribution parameter included in the acquired ranging error distribution information, generate a random number, and determine ranging error information that is a value obtained by inputting the random number to an inverse function of the cumulative distribution function and execute a simulation by outputting ranging error information”; however, a training error calculation device that utilizes virtual simulation is considered abstract idea because it merely collects, calculates, and presents data using generic conventional computer.
Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 13 and 14 are analogous to claim 1, except that claims 13 and 14 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium. The additional recited components in claim 14, such as a storage medium, a computer, and a program Having these generic components do not change the above §101 analysis.
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to a generic “processor” to carry out the computation of the statistical information and generate the ranging error distribution; however, this is considered insignificant extra solution activity, and is actually a mental process and/or mathematical process.
Dependent claim 5: the instant claim is directed to an error calculation device with a processor to determine distribution parameter to find statistical error, which is insignificant solution activity carried out by a generic component.
Dependent claim 6: the instant claim is directed to an error calculation device to obtain information on distance which is insignificant solution activity carried out by a generic component.
Dependent claim 7: the instant claim is directed to an error calculation device to obtain information on three-dimensional representation of ranging target which is insignificant solution activity carried out by a generic component.
Dependent claim 8: the instant claim is directed to an error calculation device to obtain information on coloring the representation of ranging target which is insignificant solution activity carried out by a generic component.
Dependent claim 9: the instant claim is directed to an error calculation device to obtain information on incident angle of ranging target which is insignificant solution activity carried out by a generic component.
Dependent claim 10: the instant claim is directed to an error calculation device with a processor to determine ranging error distribution parameter, which is insignificant solution activity carried out by a generic component.
Dependent claim 11: the instant claim is directed to an error calculation device with a processor to acquire ranging error information, which is insignificant solution activity carried out by a generic component.
Dependent claim 12: the instant claim is directed to an error calculation device with a processor to acquire ranging error information based on the weighted ranging error distribution information, which is insignificant solution activity carried out by a generic component
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed on April 24, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-14 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more has been maintained for the reasons noted above and further explained below.
The added or amended limitation includes: “generate a cumulative distribution function of a ranging error from the distribution model and the distribution parameter included in the acquired ranging error distribution information, generate a random number, and determine ranging error information that is a value obtained by inputting the random number to an inverse function of the cumulative distribution function and execute a simulation by outputting ranging error information”; however, a training error calculation device that utilizes virtual simulation is considered abstract idea because it merely collects, calculates, and presents data using generic conventional computer.
One way for such a device to become patent-eligible would be to integrate the error calculation into a practical application that improves the functioning of a computer or the ranging device itself rather than outputting the error distribution. There are three elements to these claims that keep them in the idea of abstract concept. The error distribution, which is computational in nature, the application of generic computer which does not transform or creates a significantly more idea, and creating a simulated output is an abstract idea.
Therefore, the instant claims must show a concrete improvement to the ranging device. For instance, optimizing the way the ranging device functions. Even in a virtual environment, it has to mimic the ranging device rather than just displaying the error distribution and simulating or graphing those values. Therefore, the instant claims 1-2, and 5-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bose et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,630,152) discloses a method for determination and correction of physical circuit event related errors of a hardware design are provided. A system can comprise a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes computer executable components stored in the memory. The computer executable components include simulation components that injects fault into a latch and a combination of logic of an emulated hardware design.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights