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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-22, filed January 30, 2026, with respect to the claim objections and rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant does not argue the objection to claim 20 presented in the previous office action.
Applicant argues on pgs. 10-15, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“The Examiner rejected original claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention was alleged to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully submits that the language in original claim 1 is not directed to a mental process and, therefore, original claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea. Applicant respectfully submits that the features recited in original claim 1 are not an abstract idea and are also integrated into a practical application.
The Federal Circuit has made clear that improvements to computer technology are not directed to an abstract idea and are thus eligible under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Because original and amended claim 1 provide a technical improvement to a technical problem in computer technology, namely in the area of computer vision measurements for image processing, Applicant submits that original and amended claim 1 are not directed to an abstract idea and thus eligible under Step 2A, Prong 1. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites ""receiving, at a processor, a plurality of input measurements including input measurements respectively associated with a first sensor type and a second sensor type" that are specific technical steps for receiving and processing measurements from sensors at a processor.
More specifically the October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (October 18, 2019) ("2019 PEG") states "[c]lams do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind .... " (pg. 7). Furthermore, "[i]n evaluating whether a claim that requires a generic computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification." 2019 PEG, pg. 8, emphasis added.
As a result of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 's recitation of "a processor'' precludes the claimed method from having "a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering," according to 2019 PEG, and is, therefore, not an abstract idea. Amended claim 1 's "a processor'' is not an abstract idea, because the specification's disclosure of "scheduling engine 122" does not recite a mere generic computer implementation, but rather, is a technical improvement in the operation of a computer system that is neither generic nor trivial, contrary to the assertion by the Examiner.
The Specification clearly sets forth a description of technical problems arising in the field of "[a]n autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle or machine is equipped with a perception system that tracks objects in the three-dimensional (3D) environment using sensors of multiple different types." Specification, ¶[0001 ]. Among the disclosed technical problems is that "measurements from the sensors can arrive at the fusion system in an order different from detection time order." Id. ¶[0002]. Further, as discussed supra, amended claim 1 reflects the solution described in the Specification that is a practical
application of an improvement in computer technology.
Citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant respectfully submits that the elements recited in amended claim 1 are directed to a practical application in computer technology and software-implemented methods that are non-abstract improvements. The very features cited by the Examiner for allegedly lacking practical application in original claim 1 provide clear evidence to the contrary, as established in Enfish.
Thus, amended claim 1 recites elements that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, as shown by improvements to computer technology and software-implemented methods for "processing asynchronous sensor measurements received from multiple sensors in order of measurement detection times." Specification, ¶[0007].”
In response the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees.
First, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.
More specifically; e.g., independent claim 1 discloses receiving a plurality of input measurements; construed by the examiner as having the broadest reasonable interpretation of mere data gathering, which were produced by two broadly claimed sensors; construed by the examiner as having the broadest reasonable interpretation of merely linking the claimed method to a technological field. Claim 1 further discloses that a current time window is identified, which were already defined upon receipt of the data, and also comprising a timestamp. A second time window, of the acquired data is identified in the received data. Claim 1 further discloses determining if the second measurement, which was merely obtained from the received input measurement data has a second timestamp within a second time window; construed as human observation and/or performable with pen and paper. If an affirmation is received, an extrapolation is performed with the data. After which, a plurality of output measurements are determined for the current time window. The output is then sorted, wherein an operation is performed using a machine. A broadest reasonable interpretation of “using a machine” includes obtaining and storing a result, sending a result, or apprising a user of a result, all of which fall within insignificant post-solution activity. There is nothing disclosed as a limitation in claim 1 precluding any of these steps from being performed within the human mind and/or with pen and paper. Independent claims 18 and 20 fall under the same interpretation. This interpretation is in light of the specification; e.g., see para. [0007] disclosing “The techniques described herein include receiving a plurality of input measurements, individual input measurements of the plurality of input measurements being associated with a respective sensor; e.g., construed by the examiner as mere data gathering.
Second, the applicant has claimed an improvement which requires the following evaluation: A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such an integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology of technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not “directed to” the recited judicial exception. The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
First, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the details necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Applicant has set forth paras. [0001], [0002], and [0007] as setting forth a technical problem to be solved and has also cited to paras. [0031] and [0040] as providing the improvement. Applicant has also set forth figs. 1-2 as providing the improvement. Paras. [0001]-[0002] are disclosed in the background the specification disclosing an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle equipped with a perception system for tracking objects, wherein the sensors may include cameras, LiDAR, ultrasonic and/or RADAR, wherein the inputs are combined utilizing a multi-sensor fusion system. A detection time associated with a measurement by a sensor may have different arrival times which arrives at the fusion system out of order, to include an indefinite delay and a different frequency with variable delay. This could introduce processing delay. Para. [0007] discloses a near identical writing of the instant claims, wherein it also discloses a lower and upper boundary (notably stricken from the instant claims through amendment). Para. [0031] of the specification discloses the types of processors being utilized, to include data centers and/or virtual computing. Para. [0040] discloses the use of a measurement receiver (240) a scheduling engine (122) which receives one or more measurements (204), (214), (224) associated with a respective detection timestamp. Received measurements may be current iteration or previous iterations received at a sensor fusion engine (124). The cited paragraphs lay out a background, a processing type, and sensor fusion receiving both current and previous measurements that may exist within some type of buffer. However, buffering data for later recall and processing sensor measurements from a plurality of sensors is not construed as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technological field. In fact, none of the cited areas of the disclosure describe in detail that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize an improvement. The cited sections are merely conclusory statements. Therefore the first criteria has not been met.
Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
The examiner notes that the first criteria has not been met. However, the second criteria will be evaluated. None of an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle, tracking of objects, sensors to include cameras, LiDAR, ultrasonic and/or radar, and/or a multi-sensor fusion system is disclosed in any of the instant claims. Further, none of a measurement receiver, scheduling engine, or sensor fusion engine is disclosed in any of the instant claims. Also, it appears the lower and upper boundaries have been stricken in the amendment and are no longer present in any of the instant claims. Further, fig. 1 also discloses an interconnect (bus) (112), I/O Device Interface (104), Network Interface (106), and storage memory (114). Fig. 2 discloses a camera sensor with camera measurements, radar sensor with radar measurements, lidar sensor with lidar measurements and the same fusion engine, which are not reflected in any of the instant claims. Therefore the second criteria has not been met. Therefore it is determined that an improvement has not been shown.
Applicant argues on pgs. 15-21, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“The combination of Au and Zhong does not teach or suggest "identifying a second time window adjacent in time to the current time window; determining whether a second measurement included in the input measurements and generated using the second sensor type has a second timestamp within the second time window; when the second timestamp is within the second time window, extrapolating a first predicted measurement from the second measurement and the second timestamp, the first predicted measurement having a first predicted timestamp within the current time window," as recited in amended claim 1.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees insofar as Au in view of Zhong is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing amended subject matter. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1, lines 35-36 disclose “control measurements.” A control measurement is not described in the specification. The closest recitation to a “control measurement” can be found in para. [0126] disclosing an interface may provide for separate phases and separate channels for transmitting control signals/addresses/data, which is not construed as synonymous. For the purposes of the current examination, control signals/addresses/data are construed as having the broadest reasonable interpretation of not necessarily comprising control measurements; e.g., see paras. [0086]-[0090] disclosing signals representative of one or more components and not measurements; see also para. [0112] disclosing address translation services to allow a GPU to access the CPU; see also para. [0035] disclosing data read and write data to a memory. However, further clarification is required.
Claims 2-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18, lines 35-36 disclose “generate control measurements.” A control measurement is not described in the specification. The closest recitation to a “control measurement” can be found in para. [0126] disclosing an interface may provide for separate phases and separate channels for transmitting control signals/addresses/data, which is not construed as synonymous. For the purposes of the current examination, control signals/addresses/data are construed as having the broadest reasonable interpretation of not necessarily comprising control measurements; e.g., see paras. [0086]-[0090] disclosing signals representative of one or more components and not measurements; see also para. [0112] disclosing address translation services to allow a GPU to access the CPU; see also para. [0035] disclosing data read and write data to a memory. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 19 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 18.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 20, lines 35-36 disclose ‘generate control measurements. The closest recitation to a “control measurement” can be found in para. [0126] disclosing an interface may provide for separate phases and separate channels for transmitting control signals/addresses/data, which is not construed as synonymous. For the purposes of the current examination, control signals/addresses/data are construed as having the broadest reasonable interpretation of not necessarily comprising control measurements; e.g., see paras. [0086]-[0090] disclosing signals representative of one or more components and not measurements; see also para. [0112] disclosing address translation services to allow a GPU to access the CPU; see also para. [0035] disclosing data read and write data to a memory. However, further clarification is required.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, line 2 discloses “receiving, at a processor.” Claim 1, lines 37-38 disclose “performing one or more operations using a machine based at least on the control measurements.” It is unclear how control measurements, which are calculated by the processor, may be used to perform operations using a machine without the use of an output mechanism; e.g., transceiver/Wi-Fi/communication bus/etc.
Claims 1-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 18, lines 1-2 disclose “A processor comprising: one or more processing units to perform operations comprising.” Claim 18, lines 37-38 disclose “performing one or more operations using a machine based at least on the control measurements.” It is unclear how control measurements, which are calculating by the one or more processing units” are output in order to perform operations using a machine without the use of an output mechanism; e.g., transceiver/Wi-Fi/communication bus/etc.
Claim 19 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 18.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 20, line 2 discloses “one or more processors to perform operations comprising.” Claim 18, lines 37-38 disclose performing one or more operations using a machine based at least on the control measurements.” It is unclear how control measurements, which are calculated by the one or more processors, are output in order to perform operations using a machine without the use of an output mechanism; e.g., transceiver/Wi-Fi/communication bus/etc.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-17 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A method comprising:
receiving, at a processor, a plurality of input measurements including input measurements respectively associated with a first sensor type and a second sensor type;
identifying a current time window corresponding in time to a first measurement included in the input measurements, the first measurement generated using the first sensor type and having a first timestamp in the current time window;
identifying a second time window adjacent in time to the current time window;
determining whether a second measurement included in the input measurements are generated using the second sensor type has a second timestamp within the second time window;
when the second timestamp is within the second time window, extrapolating a first predicted measurement from the second measurement and the second timestamp, the first predicted measurement having a first predicted timestamp within the current time window;
determining a plurality of output measurements for the current time window including the first measurement and the first predicted measurement;
sorting the plurality of output measurements by time according to respective timestamps within the current time window, including the first timestamp and the second predicted timestamp, to generate control measurements; and
performing one or more operations using a machine based at least on the control measurements.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses receiving, a plurality of input measurements including input measurements; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; identifying a current time window corresponding in time to a first measurement included in the input measurements, the first measurement generated and having a first timestamp in the current time window; construed by the examiner as human observation; identifying a second time window adjacent in time to the current time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; determining whether a second measurement included in the input measurements are generated has a second timestamp within the second time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; when the second timestamp is within the second time window, extrapolating a first predicted measurement from the second measurement and the second timestamp, the first predicted measurement having a first predicted timestamp within the current time window; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; determining a plurality of output measurements for the current time window including the first measurement and the first predicted measurement; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; sorting the plurality of output measurements by time according to respective timestamps within the current time window, including the first timestamp and the second predicted timestamp, to generate control measurements; and; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
at a processor
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
performing one or more operations using a machine based at least on the control measurements.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
respectively associated with a first sensor type and a second sensor type;
using the first sensor type and
using the second sensor type
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-17 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 18-19 are directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 18 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A processor comprising:
one or more processing units to perform operations comprising:
receiving a plurality of input measurements including input measurements respectively associated with a first sensor type and a second sensor type;
identifying a current time window corresponding in time to a first measurement included in the input measurements, the first measurement generated using the first sensor type and having a first timestamp in the current time window;
identifying a second time window adjacent in time to the current time window;
determining whether a second measurement included in the input measurements and generated using the second sensor type has a second timestamp within the second time window;
when the second time stamp is within the second time window, extrapolating a first predicted measurement from the second measurement and the second timestamp, the first predicted measurement having a first predicted timestamp within the current time window;
determining a plurality of output measurements for the current time window including the first measurement and the first predicted measurement;
sorting the plurality of output measurements by time according to respective timestamps within the current time window, including the first timestamp and the first predicted timestamp, to generate control measurements; and
performing one or more operations using a machine based at least on the control measurements.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 18 discloses receiving a plurality of input measurements including input measurements; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; identifying a current time window corresponding in time to a first measurement included in the input measurements, the and having a first timestamp in the current time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; identifying a second time window adjacent in time to the current time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; determining whether a second measurement included in the input measurements and generated has a second timestamp within the second time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; when the second time stamp is within the second time window, extrapolating a first predicted measurement from the second measurement and the second timestamp, the first predicted measurement having a first predicted timestamp within the current time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; determining a plurality of output measurements for the current time window including the first measurement and the first predicted measurement; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; sorting the plurality of output measurements by time according to respective timestamps within the current time window, including the first timestamp and the first predicted timestamp, to generate control measurements; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 18 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 18 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 18 further recites:
a processor comprising:
one or more processing units to perform operations comprising:
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 18 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
performing one or more operations using a machine based at least on the control measurements.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 18 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
respectively associated with a first sensor type and a second sensor type;
the first measurement generated using the first sensor type
using the second sensor type
Analyzing this additional element of claim 18 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 18 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 19 merely recites further details of the abstract idea of claim 19 and therefore does not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claim 20 is directed to a system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 20 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A system comprising:
one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a plurality of input measurements including input measurements respectively associated with a first sensor type and a second sensor type;
identifying a current time window corresponding in time to a first measurement included in the input measurements, the first measurement generated using the first sensor type and having a first timestamp in the current time window;
identifying a second time window adjacent in time to the current time window;
determining whether a second measurement included in the input measurement and generated using the second sensor type has a second timestamp within the second time window;
when the second timestamp is within the second time window, extrapolating a first predicted measurement from the second measurement and the second timestamp, the first predicted measurement having a first predicted timestamp within the current time window;
determining a plurality of output measurements for the current time window, including the first measurement and the first predicted measurement;
sorting the plurality of output measurements by time according to respective timestamps within the current time window, including the first timestamp and the first predicted timestamp, to generate control measurements; and
performing one or more operations using a machine based at least on the control measurements.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 20 discloses receiving a plurality of input measurements including input measurements; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; identifying a current time window corresponding in time to a first measurement included in the input measurements, and having a first timestamp in the current time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; identifying a second time window adjacent in time to the current time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; determining whether a second measurement included in the input measurement has a second timestamp within the second time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; when the second timestamp is within the second time window, extrapolating a first predicted measurement from the second measurement and the second timestamp, the first predicted measurement having a first predicted timestamp within the current time window; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; determining a plurality of output measurements for the current time window, including the first measurement and the first predicted measurement; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; sorting the plurality of output measurements by time according to respective timestamps within the current time window, including the first timestamp and the first predicted timestamp, to generate control measurements; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 20 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 20 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 20 further recites:
one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 20 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
performing one or more operations using a machine based at least on the control measurements.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 20 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
respectively associated with a first sensor type and a second sensor type;
the first measurement generated using the first sensor type
using the second sensor type
Analyzing this additional element of claim 20 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 20 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
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).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 10,496,104 B1 to Liu et al. relates to positional awareness with quadocular sensor in autonomous platforms.
US 2020/0217952 A1 to Rider et al. relates to a vehicle sensor fusion.
US 2024/0300540 A1 to Donderici relates to systems and techniques for object-based sensor fusion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 5712700349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights