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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being bolded.
A method of processing of LIDAR measurement data comprising:
receiving successive LIDAR 3D data sets over a time from a LIDAR system moving, during said time, through space, each LIDAR 3D data set corresponding to a measurement field of view (FOV) of said LIDAR system;
identifying a plurality of objects in said LIDAR 3D data sets;
generating an object model using said identified objects;
designating at least one of said plurality of identified objects as at least one potential aggressor object;
tracking position of said at least one potential aggressor object relative to said LIDAR system as said at least one potential aggressor object moves outside of said measurement FOV of said LIDAR system;
characterizing one or more of said identified objects as multi-path objects using the tracked position of said at least one potential aggressor object;
updating said object model responsively to characterizing at least one of said multi-path objects; and
providing said updated object model to a navigation system.
Claim 20 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being bolded.
A method of processing of LIDAR measurement data comprising:
receiving successive LIDAR 3D data sets, each LIDAR 3D data set corresponding to a measurement field of view (FOV) of said LIDAR system;
identifying a plurality of objects measured in said LIDAR 3D data sets; characterizing at least a portion of said plurality of objects as aggressor objects or non-aggressor objects;
generating a model comprising positions, with regards to said LIDAR system, of said plurality of objects over time, including determining a position of at least one object among said at least a portion of said plurality of objects characterized as aggressor objects to be outside of said FOV of said LIDAR system;
determining if one or more of said plurality of objects of said model is a ghost object, failing to correspond to a real object, using said determined position of said at least one object characterized as an aggressor object outside of said FOV of said LIDAR system;
removing said ghost object from said model; and
providing said model to a navigation system.
The bolded limitations can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional limitations of receiving successive LIDAR 3D data sets equates to extra-solution data activity, i.e. mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Similarly, steps of outputting results (“providing said updated object model to a navigation system” or “providing said model to a navigation system”) correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-18 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations, further describe the type of LIDAR sensor data received, and/or add insignificant extra-solution data activity, i.e. receiving movement sensor data or providing/outputting data. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.7): the amended claims satisfy Step 2A Prong Two of the Alice test because they integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the amended claims do not merely recite computational steps in isolation, but rather apply those steps to effect a concrete improvement in LIDAR-based navigation technology.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited, including amended, steps are abstract idea steps except the outputting results which is insignificant extra-solution activity. The improvement in technology is demonstrated by meaningful additional elements and/or combination of the additional elements. The improvement in abstract idea is not a qualified improvement that ensure eligibility.
The Applicant argues (pp.7-8): Notably, the Examiner acknowledged in the Office Action that claim 19 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application … The Examiner found that "[t]hese additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application." Id. The amended claims 1 and 20 similarly tie the computational steps to a navigation system by requiring that the processed object model be provided to a navigation system. The amended claims effect a real-world improvement by ensuring that navigation systems receive object models in which ghost objects have been identified, thereby improving navigation accuracy and safety.
The Examiner disagrees and submits that in Claim 19, a combination of additional elements are recited that qualifies for practical application/significantly more.
In Claims 1 and 20, there are no such combinations. The argued “computational steps” are abstract idea steps. According to the October 2019 Update on 2019 PEG: “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Further, in Synopsys: “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty”.
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-18 and 20 are distinguished over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose tracking position of said at least one potential aggressor object relative to said LIDAR system as said at least one potential aggressor object moves outside of said measurement FOV of said LIDAR system; and characterizing one or more of said identified objects as one multi-path objects using the tracked position of said at least one potential aggressor object; updating said object model responsively to characterizing at least one of said multi-path objects.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record fails to disclose generating a model comprising positions, with regards to said LIDAR system, of said plurality of objects over time, including determining a position of said at least one object characterized as an aggressor object outside of said FOV of said LIDAR system. determining if one or more of said plurality of objects of said model is a ghost object, failing to correspond to a real object, using said determined position of said one or more objects characterized as aggressor objects; removing said ghost object from said model.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to Claim 19, the prior art of record fails to disclose tracking position of said one or more potential aggressor objects as they move outside of a measurement FOV of said LIDAR system; and characterize one or more of said identified objects as ghost objects using tracked position of said one or more potential aggressor objects.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith (US 20180120842) discloses identifying multipath reflections and ghost object, including vehicles that are not in the direct line of sight of a LIDAR system. Maucher (US 20210303879) discloses analyzing LIDAR data to detect phantom object/ghost objects.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights