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 .
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to Claims 1, 15, 17 the claims recite obtaining a point cloud data set of a LiDAR system, wherein the point cloud data set comprises point cloud data of the LiDAR system at a first moment and point cloud data of the LiDAR system at a second moment, and wherein the second moment follows the first moment; identifying a dynamic point cloud cluster set based on the point cloud data at the first moment and the point cloud data at the second moment, wherein the dynamic point cloud cluster set comprises at least one dynamic point cloud cluster; and in response to identifying the dynamic point cloud cluster set, determining the second moment as a moment at which the dynamic point cloud cluster is identified, and enabling the following tracking and determination process: for each dynamic point cloud cluster in the dynamic point cloud cluster set, updating, in real time, a data set of a dynamic point cloud cluster at each current moment following the second moment, wherein the data set of the dynamic point cloud cluster comprises at least data representing a position of the dynamic point cloud cluster in a direction of gravity; determining whether the data representing the position of the dynamic point cloud cluster in the direction of gravity within a set time period meets a law of free fall; and determining that an object represented by the dynamic point cloud cluster is a falling object in response to determining that the data meets the law of free fall.“ This limitation is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported in the specification as shown by the equations recited in the specification which is an explicit recitation of an equation corresponding to the claimed limitation Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Examiner notes that Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements while Claim 15 recites the additional elements “An apparatus for identifying a falling object based on a LiDAR system, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory having a computer program comprising instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:”, Claim 17 recites the additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program comprising instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.In particular, the claim recites the additional element – “at least one processor, at least one memory having a computer program, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, are viewed as generic components such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims -Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Mitchell (US 2019/0031342 A1) Liu (WO2016/187757 A1) Habib (WO2022/040796 A1) Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and does not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved. Dependent claims 2-14, 16 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). Claims 2-14 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 16 recite limitations that are viewed as well known routine and conventional as evidences by the prior art above, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are 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. Claims 1 recite “in response to identifying the dynamic point cloud cluster set, determining the second moment as a moment at which the dynamic point cloud cluster is identified,” It is not clear what “as a moment at which the dynamic point cloud cluster is identified” means since the claims also recite “identifying a dynamic point cloud cluster set. The identifying takes some time since it is not instantaneous, and thus it is not clear what moment, “as a moment” is referring to and is therefore indefinite. Claims 1, 15, 17 recite “enabling the following tracking and determination process” It is not clear what the metes and bound of “enabling” since it is not clear what is currently not enabling and thus is indefinite. Furthermore it is not clear what “the following tracking” is referring to and is therefore indefinite. Claims 1, 15, 17 recite “at each current moment” However time continually passes and as claimed it seems the claims will continue forever and is therefore indefinite. Furthermore it is not clear what interval a moment is referring to and is therefore indefinite. Furthermore it is not clear if “current moment” is referring to a time period within the obtained point cloud data set or some later moment after obtaining is finished. Claims 1, 15, 17 recite “updating, in real time, a data set of a dynamic point cloud cluster at each current moment following the second moment, wherein the data set of the dynamic point cloud cluster comprises at least data representing a position of the dynamic point cloud cluster in a direction of gravity;” However this part of the claim seems to be unrelated to the “obtaining a point cloud data set of a LiDAR system…. identifying a dynamic point cloud cluster set….and in response to identifying the dynamic point cloud cluster set, determining the second moment as a moment….” The only connection is that a dynamic point cloud is updated following the second moment. Since the obtaining a point cloud data set (includes the second moment), any process that happens after obtaining would be following the second moment. Therefore, it is not clear when reading the claim as a whole, what is updated and how it is updated, and when it is updated and is therefore indefinite. Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Examiner notes that prior art could not be applied to the claims above due to the 35 U.S.C.§112(b) Rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mitchell (US 2019/0031342 A1) teaches an autorotating unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a rotor assembly including a hub that couples the rotor assembly to the UAV. Although not limited thereto, the UAV is suitable for collecting data about the inside of a cavity. The data acquisition system includes a processor and one or more sensors that obtain data about motion of the UAV and at least one parameter of the cavity as the UAV descends though the cavity. Features of the cavity may be mapped by generating a 3D point cloud from the data. Liu (WO2016/187757 A1) teaches controlling a movable object using multiple sensors. In one aspect, a method for calibrating one or more extrinsic parameters of a movable object is provided. The method can comprise: receiving initial values for the one or more extrinsic parameters, wherein the one or more extrinsic parameters comprise spatial relationships between at least two image sensors carried by the movable object; receiving inertial data from at least one inertial sensor carried by the movable object during the operation of the movable object; receiving image data from the at least two image sensors carried by the movable object during the operation of the movable object; and determining estimated values for the one or more extrinsic parameters based on the initial values, the inertial data, and the image data using an iterative optimization algorithm during the operation of the movable object. Habib (WO2022/040796 A1) teaches assessing playing surface properties. A ball can be launched onto the playing surface, and movement of the ball recorded. Ball movement information can be derived from a recording of ball movement. A ball's position in pixels in each frame of recording can be translated to a real-world position of the ball to determine the ball's path or trajectory. Further ball movement information, such as bounce height and spin, can be determined based on the trajectory and other information. Properties of the playing surface, including a coefficient of friction, coefficient of restitution, and deviation angle, can be determined based on the ball movement information. The properties can then be output and utilized to determine whether the playing surface meets expectations or if maintenance is required, among other things. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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, Rastovski, Catherine can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857