DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4, and 8-11 are amended.
Claims 2-3, 7, 13, 15, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 18-20 are new.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 are pending this application.
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, 4-6, 8-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 18 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claims 9-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 is/are drawn to device (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Representative Claim 1: A method for recognizing misalignments of a stationary sensor, comprising the following steps:
generating a first occupancy map based on first sensor data, generated at a first point in time, wherein the first occupancy map is a reference occupancy map corresponding to a correctly aligned position of the stationary sensor at the first point in time, the first point in time corresponding to a time of installation of the stationary sensor;
generating a second occupancy map based on second sensor data, generated at a second point in time that is different from the first point in time;
calculating a cross-correlation of the first occupancy map and of the second occupancy map, wherein a spatial offset is calculated based on the calculated cross- correlation;
and recognizing a misalignment of the stationary sensor based on the calculated cross- correlation, wherein the misalignment of the stationary sensor is recognized when the spatial offset is greater than a predefined threshold value.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of: estimating parameters, recognizing misalignments, generating points in time, and correlating maps (i.e., mathematical relationships), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the steps of estimating parameters, observing occupancy maps, calculating misalignment, and calculating correlations (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 4-6, 8, 18 and 11-12, 14, 16 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea by applying a spatial offset, points of time, threshold values (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “sensor,” and “occupancy map,” etc. (Claims 1 and 9) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “sensor,” and “occupancy map,” etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10, and dependent claims 4-6, 8, 18 and 11-12, 14, 16 19-20 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., generating calculating, recognizing, etc. steps performed by a predictive model, machine learning algorithms, a communication interface, a memory, a processor, a computational device etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of a method, wherein a calibration of the stationary sensor for compensating for the misalignment is carried out based on the calculated spatial offset:
the cross-correlation is a multidimensional cross-correlation;
the first and second occupancy maps are calculated in a polar representations (Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 4-6, 8, 18 and 11-12, 14, 16 19-20, fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole-amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 10, and dependent claims 4-6, 8, 18 and 11-12, 14, 16 19-20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of compensating for misalignment (Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. calculating cross-correlations (i.e. obtaining data) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at [page 1, lines 15-25] acknowledges that “stationary sensors installed directly on an autonomous vehicle are detected by infrastructure around the vehicle,” (i.e. conventional nature of receiving satellite data over a network). This additional element therefore do not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 4-6, 8, 18 and 11-12, 14, 16 19-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 are not eligible subject matter 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikram et al (US 2020/0158820 A1) in view of Kellner (DE 102019132150 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikram teaches a method for recognizing misalignments of a stationary sensor, comprising the following steps [0026-0027 also alignment of vehicle and stationary sensors are well known in the art applicant’s specification: page 1, lines 15-25]:
generating a first occupancy map based on first sensor data, at a first point in time [0028 for using an occupancy grid map];
generating a second occupancy map based on second sensor data, at a second point in time [0029 for additional (second) occupancy grid map];
and recognizing a misalignment of the stationary sensor based on the calculated cross-correlation, [0030-0031]
wherein the misalignment of the stationary sensor is recognized when the spatial offset is greater than a predefined threshold value [0030 for selecting the lowest smear metric (offset threshold of the lowest) and 0031 spatial offset of sensor (change orientation)].
Ikram fails to explicitly teach wherein the first occupancy map is a reference occupancy map corresponding to a correctly aligned position of the stationary sensor at the first point in time, the first point in time corresponding to a time of installation of the stationary sensor, a second occupancy map at a second point in time at a second point in time that is different from the first point in time, and calculating a cross-correlation of the first occupancy map and of the second occupancy map, wherein a spatial offset is calculated based on the calculated cross-correlation.
Kellner has a method for calibrating an environmental sensor of a vehicle (abstract) and teaches wherein the first occupancy map is a reference occupancy map corresponding to a correctly aligned position of the stationary sensor at the first point in time, the first point in time corresponding to a time of installation of the stationary sensor [0013 for performing sensor calibration when vehicle is manufactures (time of installation)],
a second occupancy map at a second point in time at a second point in time that is different from the first point in time [0034-0035]
calculating a cross-correlation of the first occupancy map and of the second occupancy map [0018, and 0035 for cross-correlating two points on two occupancy maps and calculating a shift (spatial offset) with 0036 for using the displacement (spatial offset) to determine the error of the sensor angle (misalignment)],
wherein a spatial offset is calculated based on the calculated cross-correlation [0018 for using cross-correlation for a shift (spatial offset) and means to determine outlier (threshold calculations), 0035-0036].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor alignment techniques, as disclosed by Ikram, further including the cross-correlation calculations as taught by Kellner for the purpose to determine the shift of the occupancy maps for the at least two points in time (Kellner, 0018).
Regarding Claim 4, Ikram teaches a calibration of the stationary sensor for compensating for the misalignment is carried out based on the calculated spatial offset [0022-0024].
Regarding Claim 5, Ikram fails to explicitly teach the cross-correlation is a multidimensional cross-correlation.
Kellner has a method for calibrating an environmental sensor of a vehicle (abstract) and teaches the cross-correlation is a multidimensional cross-correlation [0018 for cross correlation of grid (multidimensional) cells, 0035-0036].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor alignment techniques, as disclosed by Ikram, further including the cross-correlation calculations as taught by Kellner for the purpose to determine the error in installation angle (Kellner, 0036).
Regarding Claim 8, Ikram fails to explicitly teach the sensor generates the first sensor data and/or the second sensor data over a time period of several seconds.
Kellner has a method for calibrating an environmental sensor of a vehicle (abstract) and teaches the sensor generates the first sensor data and/or second sensor data over a time period of several seconds [0035-0036].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor alignment techniques, as disclosed by Ikram, further including the cross-correlation calculations as taught by Kellner for the purpose to determine the error in installation angle (Kellner, 0036).
Regarding Claim 9, Ikram teaches a device configured to recognize misalignments of a stationary sensor, comprising [0026-0027 also alignment of vehicle and stationary sensors are well known in the art applicant’s specification page 1, lines 15-25]:
an interface configured to receive stationary sensor data from the sensor [0028];
and a processing unit configured to [0024]:
generate a first occupancy map based on first sensor data, generated at a first point in time [0027-0028];
generate a second occupancy map based on second sensor data, generated at a second point in time [0029 for additional (second) occupancy grid map];
and recognize a misalignment of the stationary sensor based on the calculated cross-correlation [0029-0031]
Ikram fails to explicitly teach wherein the first occupancy map is a reference occupancy map corresponding to a correctly aligned position of the stationary sensor at the first point in time, the first point in time corresponding to a time of installation of the stationary sensor, a second occupancy map at a second point in time at a second point in time that is different from the first point in time, and calculating a cross-correlation of the first occupancy map and of the second occupancy map, wherein a spatial offset is calculated based on the calculated cross-correlation.
Kellner has a method for calibrating an environmental sensor of a vehicle (abstract) and teaches wherein the first occupancy map is a reference occupancy map corresponding to a correctly aligned position of the stationary sensor at the first point in time, the first point in time corresponding to a time of installation of the stationary sensor [0013 for performing sensor calibration when vehicle is manufactures (time of installation)],
a second occupancy map at a second point in time at a second point in time that is different from the first point in time [0034-0035]
calculating a cross-correlation of the first occupancy map and of the second occupancy map [0018, and 0035 for cross-correlating two points on two occupancy maps and calculating a shift (spatial offset) with 0036 for using the displacement (spatial offset) to determine the error of the sensor angle (misalignment)],
wherein a spatial offset is calculated based on the calculated cross-correlation [0018 for using cross-correlation for a shift (spatial offset) and means to determine outlier (threshold calculations), 0035-0036].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor alignment techniques, as disclosed by Ikram, further including the cross-correlation calculations as taught by Kellner for the purpose to determine the shift of the occupancy maps for the at least two points in time (Kellner, 0018).
Regarding Claim 10, Ikram teaches a stationary sensor, comprising [0026-0027 also alignment of vehicle and stationary sensors are well known in the art applicant’s specification page 1, lines 15-25]:
a radar sensor or a LIDAR sensor including a device configured to recognize misalignments of the stationary sensor, the device configured to [0028]:
generate a first occupancy map based on first sensor data, generated at a first point in time [0027-0028];
generate a second occupancy map based on second sensor data, generated at a second point in time [0029 for additional (second) occupancy grid map];
and recognize a misalignment of the stationary sensor based on the calculated cross-correlation [0029-0031]
Ikram fails to explicitly teach wherein the first occupancy map is a reference occupancy map corresponding to a correctly aligned position of the stationary sensor at the first point in time, the first point in time corresponding to a time of installation of the stationary sensor, a second occupancy map at a second point in time at a second point in time that is different from the first point in time, and calculating a cross-correlation of the first occupancy map and of the second occupancy map, wherein a spatial offset is calculated based on the calculated cross-correlation.
Kellner has a method for calibrating an environmental sensor of a vehicle (abstract) and teaches wherein the first occupancy map is a reference occupancy map corresponding to a correctly aligned position of the stationary sensor at the first point in time, the first point in time corresponding to a time of installation of the stationary sensor [0013 for performing sensor calibration when vehicle is manufactures (time of installation)],
a second occupancy map at a second point in time at a second point in time that is different from the first point in time [0034-0035]
calculating a cross-correlation of the first occupancy map and of the second occupancy map [0018, and 0035 for cross-correlating two points on two occupancy maps and calculating a shift (spatial offset) with 0036 for using the displacement (spatial offset) to determine the error of the sensor angle (misalignment)],
wherein a spatial offset is calculated based on the calculated cross-correlation [0018 for using cross-correlation for a shift (spatial offset) and means to determine outlier (threshold calculations), 0035-0036].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor alignment techniques, as disclosed by Ikram, further including the cross-correlation calculations as taught by Kellner for the purpose to determine the shift of the occupancy maps for the at least two points in time (Kellner, 0018).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikram et al (US 2020/0158820 A1) in view of Kellner (DE 102019132150 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view Sakata et al (US 2021/0364638 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ikram fails to explicitly teach the first and second occupancy maps are calculated in a polar representation.
Sakata has a method for noise in measurement results of a laser distance measurement sensor is smoothed (abstract) and teaches the first and second occupancy maps are calculated in a polar representation [0048].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor alignment techniques, as disclosed by Ikram, further including the cross-correlation calculations as taught by Kellner for the purpose to determine the shift of the occupancy maps for the at least two points in time (Kellner, 0018).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikram et al (US 2020/0158820 A1) in view of Kellner (DE 102019132150 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view Gandhi et al (US 2013/0218398 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ikram fails to explicitly teach outputting, in response to recognizing the misalignment of the sensor, a warning signal.
Gandhi has and teaches outputting, in response to recognizing the misalignment of the sensor, a warning signal [0016].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor alignment techniques, as disclosed by Ikram, further including the traffic monitoring as taught by Gandhi for the purpose to alert a driver of a misaligned object sensor by sending a written or graphic notification (Gandhi, 0016).
Claim 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikram et al (US 2020/0158820 A1) in view of Kellner (DE 102019132150 A1), as applied to Claim 1, 9, and 10 above, and further in view Gandhi et al (US 2013/0218398 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, 14, and 16, Ikram teaches recognizing a maximum permissible misalignment of the sensor based on the cross-correlation [0031 for determining that the sensor has changed orientation (threshold from accurate to misaligned).
Ikram fails to explicitly teach 6-dimensional cross correlation for sensors.
Hare has a method for efficiently finding the location of a mobile platform in scenarios in which the uncertainties associated with the coordinates of the map (abstract) and teaches 6-dimensional cross correlation for sensors [0016 for mapping multiple coordinates in 6D space].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor alignment techniques, as disclosed by Ikram, further including the coordinate calculations as taught by Hare for the purpose to map the potential transformation into 6D space (Hare, 0016).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikram et al (US 2020/0158820 A1) in view of Kellner (DE 102019132150 A1) and further in view of Park et al (US 2012/0235851 Al).
Regarding Claims 18, 19, and 20, Ikram teaches recognizing a permissible misalignment of the stationary sensor based on the calculated cross-correlation [0030 for selecting the lowest smear metric (offset threshold) and 0031 spatial offset of sensor (change orientation)].
Ikram fails to explicitly teach recognizing a maximum permissible misalignment of the sensor based on the calculated cross-correlation and deactivating the stationary sensor in response recognizing the maximum permissible misalignment of the sensor.
Park has a vertical alignment method for a radar of a vehicle includes the steps of radiating radio wave to a forward ground by a radar (abstract) and teaches recognizing a maximum permissible misalignment of the sensor based on the calculated cross-correlation [0040 for alarming a driver (maximum misalignment) with 0047-0048 for calculating the amount of misalignment of sensors];
and deactivating the sensor in response to recognizing the maximum permissible misalignment of the sensor [0047-0049 for determining the amount of misalignment and deactivating the sensor].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the sensor alignment techniques, as disclosed by Ikram, further including the alignment calculations as taught by Park for the purpose to compensate for a vertical deviation angle of the radar in response to the misalignment determination (Park, 0040).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In applicant arguments page 8, second paragraph applicant states that Ikram does not teach generating occupancy grid maps at different points of time. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Ikram teaches generating an occupancy map and Kellner teaches a first occupancy card M1 and a second occupancy card M2 at a second point of time [Kellner 0034-0035].
In applicant arguments page 8, last paragraph applicant states that Ikram does not have a stationary sensor. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Ikram interfaces with external processing to determine mount angle of the radar sensor [Ikram 0024] and Kellner teaches using both lidar and cameras which are stationary sensors and well known in the art [Kellner 0011,].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on 571-272-7753 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648