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 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 is 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 1 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step2A, 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 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
(Currently Amended) An apparatus, comprising:
a plurality of sensors to generate a plurality of sensor signals and/or sensor signal packets; and
a computing system that includes at least one processing circuit, wherein the at least one processing circuit is to:
generate a first set of data elements, wherein each data element of the first set of data elements comprises a plurality of values, derived at least in part from the sensor signals and/or sensor signal packets, wherein the plurality of values respectively pertain to points within a spatial coordinate system;
before the first set of data elements is sorted:
check one or more local invariant parameter values of each data element of the first set of data elements, and
generate a first set of global invariant parameter values for the first set of data elements independent of order of individual data elements;
sort the first set of data elements in accordance with one or more specified parameters to generate a sorted set of data elements;
after the first set of data elements is sorted, generate a second set of global invariant parameter values for the sorted first set of data elements;
verify that the sorted set of data elements has been generated in accordance with the one or more specified parameters;
verify (i) that each data element of the first set of data elements is included in the sorted set of data elements, (ii) that each data element of the sorted set of data elements is identical to a respective data element of the first set of data elements, and (iii) that no additional data elements have been introduced into the sorted set of data elements,_by;
a comparison between the first set of global invariant parameter values and the second set of global invariant parameter values, and
a verification of the one or more local invariant parameter values for the first set of data elements against respective data elements of the sorted set of data elements after the sorting;
and update a particle filter based at least in part on the sorted and verified set of data elements.
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, “generate, sort verify, comparison…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
(Currently Amended) An apparatus, comprising:
a plurality of sensors to generate a plurality of sensor signals and/or sensor signal packets; and
a computing system that includes at least one processing circuit, wherein the at least one processing circuit is to:
generate a first set of data elements, wherein each data element of the first set of data elements comprises a plurality of values, derived at least in part from the sensor signals and/or sensor signal packets, wherein the plurality of values respectively pertain to points within a spatial coordinate system;
before the first set of data elements is sorted:
check one or more local invariant parameter values of each data element of the first set of data elements, and
generate a first set of global invariant parameter values for the first set of data elements independent of order of individual data elements;
sort the first set of data elements in accordance with one or more specified parameters to generate a sorted set of data elements;
after the first set of data elements is sorted, generate a second set of global invariant parameter values for the sorted first set of data elements;
verify that the sorted set of data elements has been generated in accordance with the one or more specified parameters;
verify (i) that each data element of the first set of data elements is included in the sorted set of data elements, (ii) that each data element of the sorted set of data elements is identical to a respective data element of the first set of data elements, and (iii) that no additional data elements have been introduced into the sorted set of data elements, by;
a comparison between the first set of global invariant parameter values and the second set of global invariant parameter values, and
a verification of the one or more local invariant parameter values for the first set of data elements against respective data elements of the sorted set of data elements after the sorting;
and update a particle filter based at least in part on the sorted and verified set of data elements.
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 of “a plurality of sensors, update a particle filter…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the verifying step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The updating step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of updating the values from the evaluation result from the verifying step). Lastly, the “computing system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
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, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the sorting and verifying 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 of “a plurality of sensors, updating particle filter…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 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 judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
2/20/2026