DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-18 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted with the previous action.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 3/29/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device, comprising:
a signal extraction unit configured to extract a part of sensor data of a first distance measurement sensor; and
a region-of-interest setting unit configured to:
set a first region of interest of a spectrum of a specific component of the sensor data of the first distance measurement sensor; and
set a second region of interest of a spectrum of sensor data of a second distance measurement sensor, wherein
the first region of interest is set based on the second region of interest,
a type of the second distance measurement sensor is different from a type of the first distance measurement sensor, and
the signal extraction unit is further configured to generate extracted data based on the first region of interest.
[Claim 11] The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a storage unit configured to store specific extracted data wherein the specific extracted data is stored temporarily; and
a calculation unit configured to calculate difference data between the extracted data and specific extracted data stored in the storage unit.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a device claim. Likewise, claim 14 is a process claim and claim 15 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process and/or mathematical concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “set a first region of interest of a spectrum of a specific component of the sensor data of the first distance measurement sensor; and set a second region of interest of a spectrum of sensor data of a second distance measurement sensor, the first region of interest is set based on the second region of interest generate extracted data based on the first region of interest. a calculation unit configured to calculate difference data between the extracted data and specific extracted data stored in the storage unit”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including (A)“a signal extraction unit configured to extract a part of sensor data of a first distance measurement sensor” (B) “a storage unit that holds the extracted data” which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “an information processing device” (claims 1, 14, and 15) however the “information processing device” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0016] describing a variety of different types of “processors” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processors” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “a distance measurement” ) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the calculated data.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 11 and 14-15, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-13, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea or data gathering steps and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1. See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Specifically, the dependent claims recites steps of “setting” data values (i.e. merely defining or selecting values which is a mental opinion), more “generating” or “extracting” of data (a mental observation, evaluation, or judgment of information), and “calculating” difference data (e.g. claim 11) which is further a mental process as well as a mathematical concept. The dependent claims fail to recite any further additional elements that would amount to a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-13 are rejected for similar reasons as their parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 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.
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asanuma US 2013/0030769.
With regards to claims 1, and 14-15, LaChapelle US Pat# 10,551,501 teaches an information processing device, method and system comprising:
a signal extraction unit/ distance measurement sensor configured to extract a part of sensor data of a first distance measurement sensor; (103; figure 1) (Paragraph 0040 & 0043)and
a region-of-interest setting unit (Col. 36, lines 34-35)configured to:
set a first region of interest of a spectrum of a specific component of the sensor data of the first distance measurement sensor; (Col. 36, lines 38-45) and
set a second region of interest of a spectrum of sensor data of a second distance measurement sensor, (Col. 36, lines 38-45) (Col. 37, lines 4-15)(figure 3)wherein
the first region of interest is set based on the second region of interest, (overlap; Col. 37, lines 4-15)
a type of the second distance measurement sensor is different from a type of the first distance measurement sensor, (radio link, optical link, electrical; Col. 26, lines 51-65)and
the signal extraction unit is further configured to generate extracted data based on the first region of interest. (Col. 36, lines 38-45) (Col. 37, lines 4-15)(figure 3)
a network configured to transmit the extracted data output from the first distance measurement sensor.(senor network; figure 11)
With regards to claim 3, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the first region-of-interest setting unit sets the first region of interest based on an intensity of the spectrum of the sensor data. (Col.37, lines 51-55)
With regards to claim 4, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the region-of-interest setting unit sets a region as a first region of interest in which the intensity of the spectrum of the sensor data is one of equal to or greater than a specific threshold. (certain level; Col.37, lines 42-55)
With regards to claim 7, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the signal extraction unit extract a component included in the first region of interest of the spectrum of the sensor data and to generate the extracted data based on the component included in the first region of interest of the spectrum. (Col.3, lines 28-30)
With regards to claim 8, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the specific component includes at least one of a distance, a velocity, or an angle. (Col. 36, lines 36-39 & 54-56)
With regards to claim 9, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the specific component includes a distance and a velocity. (Col.36, lines 36-39)
With regards to claim 10, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches convert the sensor data into a one-dimensional spectrum and convert the one-dimensional spectrum into a two-dimensional spectrum, wherein the signal extraction unit is further configured to: extract a part of components of the two-dimensional spectrum of the sensor data and generate the extracted data based on the extracted part of the components of the two-dimensional spectrum of the sensor data. (horizontal and vertical directions; Col.15, lines 50-67 & 1-10)
With regards to claim 11, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches a storage unit to store specific extracted data wherein the specific extracted data is stored temporarily; and a calculation unit configured to calculate difference data between the extracted data and the specific extracted data stored in the storage unit. (Col.34, lines 39-45)
With regards to claim 12, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the first distance measurement sensor is a millimeter wave radar. (radio link; Col. 26, lines 51-65)
With regards to claim 13, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the first distance measurement sensor is LiDAR. (Col. 35, lines 55-56)
With regards to claim 16, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches an object detection unit that receives the extracted data transmitted via the network and detects an object on a basis of the extracted data. (sensor network; figure 11)
With regards to claim 17, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the first distance measurement sensor further includes a storage unit configured to store specific extracted data, wherein the specific extracted data is stored temporarily and the calculation unit is configured to calculate difference data between the extracted data and the specific extracted data already stored in the storage unit, and the network transmits the difference data. (Col. 34, lines 52-56)
With regards to claim 18, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the distance measurement sensor includes at least two sensors. (360; figure 11)
Examiner's Note:
11. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
12. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 7-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior are rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to the USC 101 rejection, applicant argues that the clam now recites a signal processing technique. Signal processing may be interpreted as an abstract idea and therefore the rejections have been maintained. Applicant goes on to argue that the data is applied in a specific signal processing operation for controlling extracted data generation. The claims collect data, perform signal processing on the data and create more data. This sequence is just data manipulation and is considered abstract. Therefore, the rejection ahs been deemed proper and maintained.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
15. A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
17. 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.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
19. 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 unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 22, 2026
