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 1-19 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. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/29/2023 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
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:
Claim 1 An information processing device comprising:
a signal extraction unit that extracts a part of sensor data of a distance measurement sensor to generate extracted data on a basis of a spectrum of a specific component of the sensor data.
[Claim 11] The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a storage unit that holds the extracted data; and a calculation unit that calculates difference data between the extracted data and temporally previous extracted data held 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.
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 limitation of “generate extracted data on a basis of a spectrum of a specific component of the sensor data.”, 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 that extracts a part of sensor data of a distance measurement sensor to generate extracted data on a basis of a spectrum of a specific component of the sensor data.” (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, 15, and 16) 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 “machine learning” 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, 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 1-12 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asanuma US 2013/0030769.
With regards to claim 1, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches an information processing device comprising:
a signal extraction unit that extracts a part of sensor data of a distance measurement sensor to generate extracted data on a basis of a spectrum of a specific component of the sensor data. (103; figure 1) (Paragraph 0040 & 0043)
With regards to claim 2, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches a region-of-interest setting unit that sets a first region of interest of the spectrum of the sensor data, wherein the signal extraction unit generates the extracted data on a basis of the first region of interest. (threshold and detection points; Paragraph 0083)
With regards to claim 3, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the region-of-interest setting unit sets the first region of interest on a basis of an intensity of the spectrum of the sensor data. (threshold; Paragraph 0083)
With regards to claim 4, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the region-of-interest setting unit sets a region in which the intensity of the spectrum of the sensor data is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold as the first region of interest. (threshold; Paragraph 0083)
With regards to claim 5, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the region-of-interest setting unit sets the first region of interest on a basis of a second region of interest set by a distance measurement sensor of a different type from the distance measurement sensor. (angle, distance/relative speed; Paragraph 0040)
With regards to claim 6, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the region-of-interest setting unit sets the first region of interest on a basis of a second region of interest set by another sensor data. (103; Paragraph 0040 & 0076)
With regards to claim 7, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the signal extraction unit extracts a component included in the first region of interest of the spectrum of the sensor data to generate the extracted data. (103; Paragraph 0040)
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. (105,106; Paragraph 0040)
With regards to claim 9, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the specific component includes a distance and a velocity. (106; Paragraph 0040)
With regards to claim 10, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches a converter that converts the sensor data into a one- dimensional spectrum and converts the one-dimensional spectrum into a two-dimensional spectrum, wherein the signal extraction unit extracts a part of components of the two-dimensional spectrum of the sensor data to generate the extracted data. (two dimensional data; figure 2) ( paragraph 0053)
With regards to claim 11, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches a storage unit that holds the extracted data; and a calculation unit that calculates difference data between the extracted data and temporally previous extracted data held in the storage unit. (need memory to perform signal processing functions; figure 1)
With regards to claim 12, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the distance measurement sensor is a millimeter wave radar. (paragraph 0014)
With regards to claim 14, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches extracting, by an information processing device, a part of sensor data of a distance measurement sensor to generate extracted data on a basis of a spectrum of a specific component of the sensor data. (103; figure 1) (Paragraph 0040 & 0043)
With regards to claim 15, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches a distance measurement sensor that extracts a part of sensor data to generate extracted data on a basis of a spectrum of a specific component of the sensor data; and a network that transmits the extracted data output from the distance measurement sensor. (103, 107; figure 1) (Paragraph 0040 & 0043)
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. (threshold and detection points; Paragraph 0083)
With regards to claim 17, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the distance measurement sensor further includes a storage unit that holds the extracted data, and difference data between the extracted data and temporally previous extracted data held in the storage unit is calculated, and the network transmits the difference data. (need memory to perform signal processing functions; figure 1)
With regards to claim 18, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the distance measurement sensor includes two or more sensors. (14a-d; figure 1)
With regards to claim 19, Asanuma US 2013/0030769 teaches the distance measurement sensor includes at least two or more types of distance measurement sensors. (14a-d; figure 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asanuma US 2013/0030769 in view of Kitsukawa et al. US 2022/0308197.
Asanuma US 2013/0030769 does not appear to teach the distance measurement sensor is LiDAR.
Kitsukawa et al. US 2022/0308197 teaches the distance measurement sensor is LiDAR. It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Asanuma invention to include the LiDar measurement sensor (paragraph 0102 & 0109) taught by Kitsukawa et al. US 2022/0308197 in order to arrive at the claimed invention as it would be highly desirable to discriminate between the result of detection of the observation target and the result of erroneous detection due to the electromagnetic noise. (paragraph 0009)
Examiner's Note:
14. 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.
15. 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.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bluege US Pat # 5,784,023 teaches speed detection method.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 January 22, 2026