DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application and a Preliminary Amendment, filed on August 9, 2023, and an Information Disclosure Statement filed on the same date. This action is made non-final.
2. Claims 1-15 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: A method for operating a sensor circuit in a motor vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor in the sensor circuit, a reflection signal from an environment of the motor vehicle by way of at least one environmental sensor;
determining, by the processor, based on the reflection signal, a particular detection point that describes a relative position of a reflection event with respect to the motor vehicle;
determining, by the processor, using pattern data, at least one surface region in the environment and a category of the at least one surface region;
determining, by the processor, whether the particular detection point lies in the at least one surface region, wherein at least one detection point that lies in the at least one surface region is categorized according to the pattern data of the at least one surface region;
filtering, by the processor, the particular detection point according to a categorization of the particular detection point; and
determining, by the processor, a driving trajectory of the motor vehicle based on the filtering.
Step 1 – Statutory Category - Yes
The claim recites a method thus it falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental process
In Step 2A, Prong one, of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a judicial exception in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of categorizing a received signal based on a region to which such signal belongs in order to determine if the received signal concerns the driving trajectory. These steps, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. Nothing in the claim, other than a nominal recitation of a sensor circuit and a corresponding processor, precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a driver observing the road ahead and recognizing different objects that are in the driving path (i.e., on the road), such as a stopped or a slow-moving cars, and determining whether such objects affect the driving trajectory (i.e., if they require a modification to the trajectory or speed).
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, prong two evaluation – Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites operating a sensor circuit in a motor vehicle and receiving a reflection signal from an environment of the motor vehicle by way of at least one environmental sensor, but the sensor circuit is recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere communication of data (i.e., obtaining data from sensors) or using a computer processor to implement the abstract idea, which is a form of an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea1.
Step 2B – Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See § MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, prong two, above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the step of receiving was considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The instant Specification does not provide any indication that the recited receiving step is anything other than a well-understood collection of reflection signals from a sensor (i.e., a radar). See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). There are no improvements of a computer or a technical field recited in the claim and there is no particular transformation of one thing into another. See MPEP § 2106.05(a-e). The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities because they represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, Claims 1 is ineligible under § 101.
With respect to dependent Claims 2-12, these claims are directed to the method of Claim 1 (Step 1: Yes), and they recite subject matter that falls within “mental processes” grouping (Step 2A, prong one), but they do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application” (Step 2A, prong two) and do not recite additional elements that add an inventive concept to the claims (Step 2B). Therefore, these claims are ineligible under § 101. The respective dependent claims recite additional features further describing the sensor data received and/or determinations performed on such data, but even in combination, the additional elements recited in these dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea2. For example, Claim 2 further describes pattern data, Claim 3 describes detecting a landmark and determining the vehicle’s relative position to that landmark, Claim 9 further describes the environmental sensor, etc.
With respect to Claims 13-15, these claims are directed to a sensor circuit (Step 1: Yes), but are otherwise rejected under the same rationale as discussed above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schack et al. (hereinafter Schack), US 2021/0341293 A1, published on November 4, 2021, in view of Miyahara, US 12,181,560 B2, issued on December 31, 2024 (PCT filed on November 9, 2018).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Schack teaches a method for operating a sensor circuit in a motor vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor in the sensor circuit, a reflection signal from an environment of the motor vehicle by way of at least one environmental sensor (see Fig. 3A, ¶ 0080, illustrating an environmental data acquisition unit and a corresponding acquisition space; see also ¶¶ 0022, 0056, describing various sensors that can be implemented with the environmental data acquisition unit).
determining, by the processor, based on the reflection signal, a particular detection point that describes a relative position of a reflection event with respect to the motor vehicle (see generally, ¶¶ 0022, 0056, describing various sensors that can be used – while Schack does not appear to explicitly discuss reflection, a skilled artisan would understand that a radar would rely on the reflection signal in order to detect particular points, as is well known in the art and as further shown by Miyahara, below).
determining, by the processor, using pattern data, at least one surface region in the environment and a category of the at least one surface region (see ¶¶ 0023, 0069, 0082-83, showing that known methods for pattern recognition can be used to detect objects in the environmental data, where a position and a category of the object are assigned to the detected object, and that such objects are correlated to an area category).
determining, by the processor, whether the particular detection point lies in the at least one surface region, wherein at least one detection point that lies in the at least one surface region is categorized according to the pattern data of the at least one surface region (see ¶¶ 0016-18, 0028-31, showing various categories, such as “drivable area” and “undrivable area,” or “roadway area,” “developed area,” and “vegetation area,” and discussing how detected objects are processed based on their relation to an area category).
filtering, by the processor, the particular detection point according to a categorization of the particular detection point (see ¶¶ 0027-33, 0083, showing filtering based on the object’s location/area, such that environmental data corresponding to the negatively assigned area category (i.e., a house wall or a building) can be excluded while the environmental data corresponding to the positively linked area (i.e., a road surface) can be further processed).
determining, by the processor, a driving trajectory of the motor vehicle based on the filtering (see ¶ 0004, 0074, showing that the position of the vehicle (and the relative positions of relevant objects with respect to the vehicle) is used in determining how to navigate/control the vehicle).
As noted above, Schack teaches that various sensors can be used as a part of the environmental data acquisition unit (see ¶¶ 0022, 0056), and a skilled artisan would understand that using a radar for such sensor would result in reflection data being utilized in order to interpret the acquisition space covered by the sensor, as illustrated by the teachings of Miyahara. Miyahara describes a tracking technology utilizing a radar (see Miyahara, Figs. 1a-d; see also col. 2, lines 1-7, col. 4, lines 12-25).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the pattern data are determined from a digital environment map and describe at least one stationary landmark or at least one roadway charted in the environment map, and the at least one surface region borders a surface occupied by a charted stationary landmark or at least one surface region borders a surface occupied by a roadway (see Schack, ¶¶ 0018, 0047, 0073, 0082-83).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 2, as discussed above, and further suggests detecting, by way of the at least one environmental sensor, at least one further landmark described by further detection points; and determining a relative position of the motor vehicle with respect to the at least one stationary landmark or the at least one roadway by comparing the further detection points with the environment map and the environment map oriented with respect to the motor vehicle (see Schack, ¶¶ 0069-75; see also Figs. 3A-D).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the at least one surface region is defined as one: a landmark surface having at least one stationary landmark and being irrelevant to travel upon the landmark surface, or a roadway surface for at least one other road user being relevant to the driving trajectory (see Schack, ¶ 0016, 0083).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 4, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein a detection point that is recognized as being immovable in regard to the environment and which is situated outside of each of the at least one surface region counted as a landmark surface or is situated inside of one of the at least one surface region counted as a roadway region is categorized as a reflection event at a stationary road user, the reflection event at the stationary road user being signaled as an end of a traffic jam or as a waiting line at a traffic sign or a traffic signal installation (see Schack, ¶ 0083, discussing “preceding vehicle” determination which can occur only if the object is in the drivable area).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 4, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the filtering involves marking or deleting a detection point of a landmark surface (see Schack, ¶¶ 0028, 0031-33, 0071).
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the at least one surface region is only a partial region of an overall detection region of the environmental sensor, or wherein the pattern data define at least two surface regions situated next to each other along the driving trajectory (see Schack, Figs. 3B-D).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein one of the at least one surface region is defined by an upcoming roadway section or by an upcoming traffic lane that is formed by the driving trajectory and a tolerance range of a given width situated on a side of the driving trajectory (see Schack, Figs. 3A-D, ¶¶ 0048, 0067).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the environmental sensor comprises a radar sensor and the reflection signal describes, in addition to the relative position, a speed of movement of an object causing the reflection event (see discussion of Claim 1; see also Miyahara, col. 4, lines 1-7).
With respect to dependent Claim 10, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the filtering is used only for detection points that are recognized as being stationary in the environment or have a distance from the motor vehicle which is greater than a predetermined minimum distance (see Schack, ¶ 0022, describing the acquisition space and discussing different ranges or visibilities of sensors, where the acquisition space may be restricted to a particular area).
With respect to dependent Claim 11, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein, after the filtering, a result of the filtering is relayed to the processor, and the processor performs an object recognition based on a relative position of filtered detection points or the driving trajectory based on a position of each of the detection points or a plausibility check for the object recognition or the driving trajectory (see Schack, ¶¶ 0073-78).
With respect to dependent Claim 12, Schack in view of Miyahara teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the driving trajectory is determined for an autonomous driving function during travel of the motor vehicle(see Schack, ¶ 0074).
With respect to Claims 13-15, these claims are directed to a sensor circuit comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claims 1 and 9, respectively, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as those claims, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 It is noted that Claim 1 recites “determining … a driving trajectory of the motor vehicle based on the filtering,” but this does not need to be interpreted as performing a vehicle control (such as steering, breaking, etc.), which is considered integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; further clarification explicitly requiring such vehicle control in response to the recited determinations and filtering would appear to overcome the § 101 rejection.
2 It is noted that Claim 12 recites “wherein the driving trajectory is determined for an autonomous driving function during travel of the motor vehicle,” but the claim does not appear to require an implementation of a vehicle control (just a determination of what should be done).