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 .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 11-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the present application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2021/073854 filed on 08/30/2021 & foreign priority for DE foreign application DE10 2020 125 977 filed on 10/05/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/29/2023 & 12/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method, claim 18 is directed to a system and claim 20 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 11, 18 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 18 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 11 as discussed here. Claim 11 recites:
A method for classifying objects in an environment of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving sensor data which describe the environment from an environmental sensor of the vehicle,
recognizing an object in a region of a roadway on which the vehicle is located based on the sensor data,
determining an object region on the roadway, with which object region the object is associated,
associating a base point with the object based on the sensor data,
determining a height of the base point with reference to a vehicle vertical direction of the vehicle,
determining a roadway height with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the object region, wherein the roadway height is determined on a premise of a predetermined grade of the roadway between a forward-zone region of the roadway in front of the vehicle and the object region, and
classifying the object as an object that can be driven under upon determining that a difference between the roadway height and the height of the base point exceeds a predefined threshold value.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “recognizing … ”, “determining …” and “classifying … “ all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for classifying objects in an environment of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving sensor data which describe the environment from an environmental sensor of the vehicle,
recognizing an object in a region of a roadway on which the vehicle is located based on the sensor data,
determining an object region on the roadway, with which object region the object is associated,
associating a base point with the object based on the sensor data,
determining a height of the base point with reference to a vehicle vertical direction of the vehicle,
determining a roadway height with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the object region, wherein the roadway height is determined on a premise of a predetermined grade of the roadway between a forward-zone region of the roadway in front of the vehicle and the object region, and
classifying the object as an object that can be driven under upon determining that a difference between the roadway height and the height of the base point exceeds a predefined threshold value.
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.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The associating step is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 18 and 20 further recite “A computing device for a driver assistance system of a vehicle” and “A computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code which, when executed by a computing device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely defining terms/scenarios or have additional steps such as “determining”. Therefore, dependent claims 12-17 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 11-18 and 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 11, Rider teaches A method for classifying objects in an environment of a vehicle, the method comprising (see at least [Abstract, ¶01 & 068-073]):
receiving sensor data which describe the environment from an environmental sensor of the vehicle (Receiving sensor data that describes the environment around the vehicle from a sensor of the vehicle. see at least [¶027, 037 & 042-044]),
recognizing an object in a region of a roadway on which the vehicle is located based on the sensor data (Recognizing an object in a region of the road that the vehicle is located on based on the sensor data. see at least [¶034-037, 045, 052 & 078]),
determining an object region on the roadway, with which object region the object is associated (Determining an object region on the road, the object being associated with this object region. see at least [¶050-055, 061-062, 087, FIG 2A-2B & FIG 4]),
associating a base point with the object based on the sensor data (Associating a base point of the object/obstacle based on the sensor data. see at least [¶050-055, FIG 2A-2B & FIG 4]),
determining a height of the base point with reference to a vehicle vertical direction of the vehicle (Determining the height of the base point of the object/obstacle with reference to the vehicle vertical direction of the vehicle. see at least [¶050-055, FIG 2A-2B & FIG 4]),
and classifying the object as an object that can be driven under upon determining that a difference between the roadway height and the height of the base point exceeds a predefined threshold value (Classifying that an object/obstacle can be driven under safely upon determining that a difference between the road/ground height and the height of the base point of the object/obstacle exceeds a predefined threshold value (safety height). Furthermore, an object is being classified in this art as a determination is always made as to whether the object is safe to approach or if a safety measure must be activated. see at least [¶025, 057-060, 067-073 & 078-081]).
Rider does not explicitly teach determining a roadway height with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the object region, wherein the roadway height is determined on a premise of a predetermined grade of the roadway between a forward-zone region of the roadway in front of the vehicle and the object region.
Shall be noted that Rider teaches to obtain a roadway height (in this case the ground) with reference to an obstacle, but does not go into explicitly detail on the grade of the road below the obstacle (see at least [“[¶054] According to various aspects, the determination of the distance from ground 235 of the obstacle 132 (see also FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B) may include determining the obstacle range 233 associated with a range of a respective obstacle 132 from the at least one lens 314 of the optical imaging system 300. Based on the sensor image 112i, an image distance from ground 225 may be determined for the image object 114 that corresponds to the obstacle 132.”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Hanert.
Hanert does teach determining a roadway height with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the object region, wherein the roadway height is determined on a premise of a predetermined grade of the roadway between a forward-zone region of the roadway in front of the vehicle and the object region (Determining a road height with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the object region, the road height is determined based on the predetermined road grade/slope/inclination of the road between where the vehicle is and the object region. see at least [¶021, 026-031 & FIG 1-4]);
Hanert would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of classifying objects to be driven under by a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider to use the technique of determining a roadway height with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the object region, wherein the roadway height is determined on a premise of a predetermined grade of the roadway between a forward-zone region of the roadway in front of the vehicle and the object region as taught by Hanert. Doing so would lead to improved warning and reaction to unsafe obstacles that would be unsafe to drive under (see at least [¶014]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rider and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Rider teaches wherein the object is classified as a relevant object on the roadway upon determining that the difference between the roadway height and the height of the base point falls short of the predefined threshold value (Classifying that an object/obstacle is a relevant object upon determining that a difference between the road/ground height and the height of the base point of the object/obstacle falls short of a predefined threshold value (safety height). Furthermore, an object is being classified in this art as a determination is always made as to whether the object is safe to approach or if a safety measure must be activated. see at least [¶057-060, 067-073 & 078-081]).
Regarding Claim 17, Rider and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Hanert teaches wherein the roadway height is determined by determining a height of a road surface of the roadway with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the forward-zone region based on the sensor data (The road/ground height is determined by determining a height of the road/ ground surface of the road with reference to the vehicle vertical direction in the forward zone based on the sensor data. see at least [¶025, 050-055, 060-062, FIG 2A-2B & FIG 4]).
Regarding Claim 18, Rider and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Hanert teaches A computing device for a driver assistance system of a vehicle, wherein the computing device is configured to perform the method according to claim 11 (see at least [¶026, 035, 042 & 068]). */Please see the rejection of independent claim 11 for the rejection of those limitations/*
Regarding Claim 19, Rider and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 18 as shown above, furthermore, Hanert teaches wherein the driver assistance system is configured to maneuver the vehicle in an at least semi-automated manner according to a classification of the object in the environment of the vehicle (The driving/collision assistance system can maneuver the vehicle in an autonomous manner according to the classification of the object/obstacle in the environment of the vehicle. see at least [¶033-035 & 059-060].
Regarding Claim 20, Rider and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Hanert teaches A computing device for a driver assistance system of a vehicle, wherein the computing device is configured to perform the method according to claim 11 (see at least [¶0129-0130]). */Please see the rejection of independent claim 11 for the rejection of those limitations/*
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation) in further view of Kook (US 20200156618 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Rider and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, Rider and Hanert do not explicitly teach wherein the grade is predetermined on the premise of at least one of a predetermined maximum grade or a predetermined maximum change in curvature for the roadway.
However, Kook does teach wherein the grade is predetermined on the premise of at least one of a predetermined maximum grade or a predetermined maximum change in curvature for the roadway (The road grade is predetermined on the premise of the predetermined maximum grade for the road. see at least [¶018, 092 & 095]).
Kook would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of vehicle control based on road grade information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider and Hanert to use the technique of having the grade be predetermined on the premise of at least one of a predetermined maximum grade for the roadway as taught by Kook. Doing so would lead to improved vehicle control by taking into account road grade information (see at least [¶092]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation) in further view of Schmidt (US 20200156630 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Rider and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, Rider and Hanert do not explicitly teach wherein the grade is predetermined based on digital map data describing the grade of the roadway between the forward-zone region and the object region.
However, Schmidt does teach wherein the grade is predetermined based on digital map data describing the grade of the roadway between the forward-zone region and the object region (The road grade/inclination is predetermined based on a digital navigation map that describes the grade/inclination of the road between where the vehicle is and the object region. see at least [¶033-034 & FIG 3]).
Schmidt would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of classifying objects to be driven under by a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider and Hanert to use the technique to of having the grade be predetermined based on digital map data describing the grade of the roadway between the forward-zone region and the object region as taught by Schmidt. Doing so would lead to improved safety control to evade collisions with overhead objects while keeping in mind the road inclination (see at least [¶055]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation) in further view of Kambe (US 20130002470 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Rider and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, Rider and Hanert do not explicitly teach wherein the threshold value is determined based on a predetermined maximum height of a lower edge of objects which is able to be detected based on the sensor data.
However, does teach wherein the threshold value is determined based on a predetermined maximum height of a lower edge of objects which is able to be detected based on the sensor data (The threshold value is determined based on a predetermined maximum height of a lower edge of elevation-view structures/objects that are detected based on the sensor data. For example, the threshold value is set to evade classification of normal objects as elevation type object/structures. see at least [¶0505, 0636, 0683 & 0715-0716]).
Kambe would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of obstacle detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider and Hanert to use the technique of having the threshold value be determined based on a predetermined maximum height of a lower edge of objects which is able to be detected based on the sensor data as taught by Kambe. Doing so would lead to improved notification of a collision danger with an overhead object (see at least [¶0648]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider (US 20210224559 A1) in view of Hanert DE102016213377A1 (English Translation) in further view of Pfeiffer (US 10929711 B1).
Regarding Claim 16, Rider and Hanert teach all of the limitations of Claim 11 as shown above, Rider and Hanert do not explicitly teach wherein at least one of uncertainties in the sensor data or tolerances when determining the roadway height are also taken into account when determining the threshold value.
However, Pfeiffer does teach wherein at least one of uncertainties in the sensor data or tolerances when determining the roadway height are also taken into account when determining the threshold value (The uncertainties/noise of sensor data are taken into account when determining a threshold values. The uncertainties/ noise of sensor data are also found when measuring the road height. see at least [Column 2-3, Lines 54-14 & Column 9, Lines 22-30]).
Pfeiffer would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of processing vehicle sensor data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Rider and Hanert to use the technique of having at least one of uncertainties in the sensor data or tolerances when determining the roadway height are also taken into account when determining the threshold value as taught by Pfeiffer. Doing so would lead to improved vehicle control from processed sensor data (see at least [Column 4, Lines 3-31]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CLEAR PATH DETECTION USING SEGMENTATION-BASED METHOD (US 20100098297 A1)
Method And Device For Determining Height (CN 113002548 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 866-2
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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667