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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for provisional application based on application filed on 03/23/2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2023 was filed. The submission is 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-12,14-21,23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muresan et al (U.S.2011/0317002) and further in view of Schwartz et al (U.S. 7050908)
1. As per claims 1,10,19 Muresan disclosed a method of processing a camera frame in a mobile device, the method comprising:
capturing the camera frame using a camera mounted on a vehicle traveling on a road;
receiving the camera frame from the camera [The process 50 includes receiving a video signal from a sensor such as a camera 602 that may be attached to a vehicle 610] (Paragraph. 0027);
determining a drivable path of the vehicle [The driving path module 30 may identify the driving path based on a variety of input data. For example, driving module 30 may receive a video frame from image source input 42 and determine a driving path based in part on the image. Furthermore, driving path module 30 may determine a driving path based on other data sources such as vehicle data input 40 or external data input 44.] (Paragraph. 0022);
determining a section of the camera frame that does not contain the drivable path [The brightness levels may be chosen or calculated such that visual features of the image are not obscured by providing a brightness level for non-driving path segments that allow for discernment of various objects detected by sensor 602] (Paragraph. 0032);
partitioning a part of the camera frame containing the drivable path into at least one section based on a distance from the vehicle to each of the at least one section [performing a first segmentation on the at least one video frame to divide the at least one video frame into a plurality of segments containing input pixel data. The method also includes altering input pixel data based on a segment associated with the input pixel data to create output pixel data and providing the at least one video frame comprising the output pixel data to a display] (Paragraph. 0004); and determining a resolution for the processing of each of the at least one section based on the distance from the vehicle of the at least one section [Brightness adjustments may be accomplished by changing the luminance or brightness of pixels in the image, by changing the backlighting or filtering of the image, by changing the duty cycle of various regions of the image, by displaying parts of the image with different intensities on a multilayer display, or otherwise. The brightness adjustments may vary based upon the display technology in the vehicle display system of the vehicle] (Paragraph. 0025).
However, Muresan did not explicitly disclose, “projecting the drivable path onto the camera frame”.
In the same field of endeavor a method of consolidating lane marker position information by projecting lane marker information from a previously generated video frame into a current video frame (col. 1, lines 38-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated a method of consolidating lane marker position information by projecting lane marker information from a previously generated video frame into a current video frame as taught by Muresan in the method and system of Schwartz to provide more efficient lane detection from a camera frame.
2. As per claims 2,11, 20 Muresan-Schwartz disclosed further comprising: determining the drivable path by using a map of the road (Muresan, Paragraph. 0029).
3. As per claims 3,12,21 Muresan-Schwartz disclosed further comprising: determining the drivable path of the vehicle by using a sensor on the vehicle (Muresan, Paragraph. 0019).
4. As per claims 5,14,23 Muresan-Schwartz disclosed further comprising: discarding the section of the camera frame that does not contain the drivable path (Muresan, Paragraph. 0024).
5. As per claims 6,15,24 Muresan-Schwartz disclosed further comprising: processing information in each of the at least one section using the determined resolution for processing (Muresan, Paragraph. 0025).
5. As per claims 7,16 Muresan-Schwartz disclosed further comprising: determining a position of the vehicle, an orientation of the vehicle or a velocity of the vehicle by using the sensor (Muresan, Paragraph. 0022).
6. As per claims 8,17 Muresan-Schwartz disclosed wherein the drivable path of the vehicle is determined based on the position of the vehicle, the orientation of the vehicle or the velocity of the vehicle (Muresan, Paragraph. 0036).
7. As per claims 9,18 Muresan-Schwartz disclosed wherein the part of the camera frame containing the drivable path is partitioned into the at least one section based on a condition of the road (Muresan, Paragraph. 0005).
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.
8. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-21, 23-24 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 1 is directed to a method, claim 10 is directed to a device and claim 19 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 19 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 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. The other analogous claims 10 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method of processing a camera frame in a mobile device, the method comprising:
capturing the camera frame using a camera mounted on a vehicle traveling on a road;
receiving the camera frame from the camera;
determining a drivable path of the vehicle;
projecting the drivable path onto the camera frame;
determining a section of the camera frame that does not contain the drivable path;
partitioning a part of the camera frame containing the drivable path into at least one section based on a distance from the vehicle to each of the at least one section; and
determining a resolution for processing of each of the at least one section based on the distance from the vehicle to each of the at least one section.
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, “determining …” 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 of processing a camera frame in a mobile device, the method comprising:
capturing the camera frame using a camera mounted on a vehicle traveling on a road;
receiving the camera frame from the camera;
determining a drivable path of the vehicle;
projecting the drivable path onto the camera frame;
determining a section of the camera frame that does not contain the drivable path;
partitioning a part of the camera frame containing the drivable path into at least one section based on a distance from the vehicle to each of the at least one section; and
determining a resolution for processing of each of the at least one section based on the distance from the vehicle to each of the at least one section.
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 and casting steps 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 disqualifying, associating and sending steps are 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 1, 10 and 19 further recite “A method of processing a camera frame in a mobile device, the method comprising ; “A device comprising a memory and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the processor configured to:” and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising code, which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to process a camera frame in a device, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising code for:” 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. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “capturing the camera frame using a camera mounted on a vehicle traveling on a road” in claim 1; “receive a camera frame from a camera mounted on a vehicle traveling on a road” in claim 10 and “capturing the camera frame using a camera mounted on a vehicle traveling on a road” in claim 19 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the autonomous vehicle autonomously drives through the predicted path of travel as a target path” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
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 9 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 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. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-18, 20-21 and 23-24 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-18, 20-21 and 23-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-3, 5-12,14-21,23-24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1,10 and 19 recites the limitation "a part of the camera frame containing the drivable path " would be clearer as, “a portion of the camera frame containing the drivable path”. Regarding the “drivable path” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
11. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667