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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims require proper line indentation. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See CFR 1.75(i).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the phrase “object,:” is a typographical error.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps that include determination of object type, object tracking, and scoring.
The limitation of determining a type of object by tracking the object and scoring the object,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the computer
components of claim 9). That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element
precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a
processor” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually
determining a type of object by visually tracking the object and scoring the object in a mental table.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 9
only recites one additional element – using a processor to determine a type of object by tracking the
object and scoring the object. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e.,
as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than
mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this
additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception
using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is
not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iketani (US 2008/0166024) in view of Ibanez-Guzman et al. (US 2017/0043771), hereinafter Ibanez-Guzman.
In re. claim 1, Iketani teaches a method of determining moving and stationary states of an object using a lidar sensor, the method comprising: determining a type of object (at object classifying portion (263)) (fig. 4) after obtaining object information obtained through object tracking (261, 262) (vector obtained via yaw rate sensor) (para [0084]-[0085]), and determining that the object is in a stationary state when the object is determined to be a static object (265), and determining whether the object is in a moving state or in the stationary state based on object tracking information on the object when the object is determined to be a dynamic object (264) (fig. 4).
Iketani fails to disclose assigning a score, the score based on a score table in which scores are set according to characteristics of a dynamic object and a static object.
Ibanez-Guzman teaches assigning a score (St) (fig. 10), the score based on a score table (50) in which scores are set according to characteristics of a dynamic object and a static object (type of obstacles (para [0098]) includes fixed or mobile obstacles (13, 14, 15) (para [0033])).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Iketani to incorporate the teachings of Ibanez-Guzman to have the recited score, for the predictable result of identifying the object based on previously determined results.
In re. claims 2, 10, and 14 Iketani as modified by Ibanez-Guzman (see Iketani) teach the object information comprises velocity information of the object (via speed sensor (113)) (para [0085]).
In re. claim 3, 11, and 15 Iketani as modified by Ibanez-Guzman (see Ibanez-Guzman) teach the score table comprises an item to assign a dynamic score and an item to assign a static score (e.g. score assigned in the table to fixed or obstacle) (para [0033] and [0098]).
In re. claim 9, Iketani teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (508) (para [0210]) on which a program configured to implement a method of determining moving and stationary states of an object using a lidar sensor is recorded, wherein the program, when executed by a processor (CP 501) (para [0211]), causes the processor to: determine a type of object (at object classifying portion (263)) (fig. 4) after obtaining object information obtained through object tracking (261, 262) (vector obtained via yaw rate sensor) (para [0084]-[0085]); and determine that the object is in a stationary state when the object is determined to be a static object (265), and determine whether the object is in a moving state or in the stationary state based on object tracking information on the object when the object is determined to be a dynamic object (264) (fig. 4).
Iketani fails to disclose assigning a score, the score based on a score table in which scores are set according to characteristics of a dynamic object and a static object.
Ibanez-Guzman teaches assigning a score (St) (fig. 10), the score based on a score table (50) in which scores are set according to characteristics of a dynamic object and a static object (type of obstacles (para [0098]) includes fixed or mobile obstacles (13, 14, 15) (para [0033])).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Iketani to incorporate the teachings of Ibanez-Guzman to have the recited score, for the predictable result of identifying the object based on previously determined results.
In re. claim 13, Iketani teaches an object tracking device, the device comprising: a lidar sensor (111) (para [0057]); and a lidar signal processor (CPU (115)) configured to: track an object using lidar data obtained by the lidar sensor (para [0065]), determine a type of object (at object classifying portion (263)) (fig. 4) after obtaining object information obtained through object tracking (261, 262) (vector obtained via yaw rate sensor) (para [0084]-[0085]), determine that the object is in a stationary state when the object is determined to be a static object (265), and determine whether the object is in a moving state or in the stationary state based on object tracking information on the object when the object is determined to be a dynamic object (264) (fig. 4).
Iketani fails to disclose assigning a score, the score based on a score table in which scores are set according to characteristics of a dynamic object and a static object.
Ibanez-Guzman teaches assigning a score (St) (fig. 10), the score based on a score table (50) in which scores are set according to characteristics of a dynamic object and a static object (type of obstacles (para [0098]) includes fixed or mobile obstacles (13, 14, 15) (para [0033])).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Iketani to incorporate the teachings of Ibanez-Guzman to have the recited score, for the predictable result of identifying the object based on previously determined results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647