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
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed on November 6, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanch et al. (IEEE Publication, ‘Position Error Bound Calculation of GNSS using Measurement Residuals’, hereon Blanch) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the respective claims in view of Blanch has been withdrawn. However, 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 1-14: 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; and
execute a simulation using the determined distribution parameter
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; and
execute a simulation using the determined distribution parameter. 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.
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 November 6, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanch et al. (IEEE Publication, ‘Position Error Bound Calculation of GNSS using Measurement Residuals’, hereon Blanch) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the respective claims in view of Blanch has been withdrawn. However, 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 above and further explained below.
The instant claims are amended to include some structure into the independent claims in order to extend to concept and create a significantly more than the abstract idea of “ranging error calculation”. However, the added limitation, such as “a laser or a radar, wherein the laser or the radar is configured to generate ranging information” for instance is used in general for gathering parameters or data at a high level of generality. Further, “determining the distribution parameter to be a parameter of the distribution function when the error from the statistical information is the smallest; and execute a simulation using the determined distribution parameter” constitute abstract concept or idea because simulation of data in general considered an abstract idea; and viewed as a mathematical concept or mental process. It actually creates a simplified model of real-world process, which is considered abstract because it focuses on the concept rather than the physical, tangible process. In other words, it creating a theoretical model per se. 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.
Jia et al. (U.S. PAP 2021/0112190) discloses a method for jointly calibrating external parameters of multiple cameras in order to reduce an overlay error of the multi-camera external parameter.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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