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 § 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 6 and 9-16 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.
Regarding claim 6, “the sensor” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the sensor” to mean any sensor.
Regarding claim 9, “this claim recites “at least one processor” and “a controller”. It is unclear whether the identifying an erroneous signature is done by the processor or the controller, or both, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the identifying to be done by any of the processor or the controller.
Regarding claims 10-16, these claims depend from claim 9 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 9 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 9 noted above.
Regarding claim 14, “the sensor” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the sensor” to mean any sensor.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 9 recites:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for improving an accuracy of object detection, comprising:
identifying, by a controller, an erroneous signature of at least a part of a sensed information unit (SIU) for use in the object detection, wherein a source of an error of the erroneous signature is a sensing unit that generated the SIU under a current acquisition condition, wherein the at least part of the SIU captured an object; and
triggering an acquisition of a new SIU, under a desired acquisition condition that is tailored to solve the error”
The limitation of identifying an erroneous signature, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a processor, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the processor identifying an erroneous signature in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of looking at a camera output and determining whether the camera is calibrated in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of generating the sensed information unit and triggering an acquisition, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a sensing unit or a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the generating from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a sensing unit or processor language, the claim encompasses the user deciding to look and generate information of what he sees in his mind. Thus, this limitation is also a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a processor to perform identifying and triggering. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of identifying and triggering) such that it amounts to 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium, a processor, a controller, and a sensing unit to perform operations, identifying, generating, triggering, and acquiring amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 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 claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites acquiring a new SIU. This additional task is an extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The collection of available data using known techniques does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Electric Power Group LLC. v. Alstom, S.A, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a data structure, an adaptable artificial intelligence (AI) system, and a sensor, which amount to generic computer components. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kundu (US 20200211226 A1).
Claim 1
Kundu teaches:
A method that is computer implemented and is for improving an accuracy of object detection, the method comprises (Kundu - Paragraph 0030-0031, claim 13) “calibrate the one or more cameras using the calculated parameters for subsequent accurate measurement of 3-D objects detected”
identifying, by a controller, an erroneous signature of at least a part of a sensed information unit (SIU) for use in the object detection (Kundu - Paragraphs 0004, 0084-0091) “determine a measurement error of the second direction based on the determined width of the first object and the specified width of the first object”
wherein a source of an error of the erroneous signature is a sensing unit that generated the SIU under a current acquisition condition (Kundu - Abstract, Paragraph 0004 “receive a first image from a camera onboard the vehicle”
wherein the at least part of the SIU captured an object (Kundu - Abstract, Paragraph 0004) “recognize a first object within the image”
and triggering an acquisition of a new SIU, under a desired acquisition condition that is tailored to solve the error (Kundu – Paragraphs 0023, 0094) “automatically and continuously calibrate the focal length of a camera for accurate 3D measurement”
Claim 2
Kundu teaches:
the identifying comprises accessing an erroneous signatures data structure that stores information about erroneous signatures (Kundu - Paragraphs 0090-0092) “generate a data structure (e.g. . . . , X direction and Y direction errors for each distance 236) to store the calculated X direction error Δx, Y direction error Δy”
and accuracy solving measures associated with the erroneous signatures (Kundu - Paragraph 0059, Figs. 2 and 10) “the process 1000 may be performed by one or more processors executing the recognition program and the control program”
Claim 3
Kundu teaches:
one or more accuracy solving measures of the accuracy solving measures involves acquiring, by the sensing unit, the new SIU under the desired acquisition condition (Kundu - Paragraphs 0023, 0094) “automatically and continuously calibrate the focal length of a camera for accurate 3D measurement”
Claim 4
Kundu teaches:
one or more accuracy solving measures of the accuracy solving measures differs from acquiring, by the sensing unit, the new SIU under the desired acquisition condition (Kundu - Paragraphs 0021-0022) “Calibration parameters of a camera may include intrinsic, extrinsic, and distortion parameters”
Claim 5
Kundu teaches:
one or more accuracy solving measures of the accuracy solving measures involve selecting a part of an adaptable artificial intelligence (AI) system that is dedicated to solving an accuracy of a certain erroneous signature (Kundu - Paragraph 0103) “recognize a sign type of the detected sign from one or more of the images… artificial neural networks”
Claim 6
Kundu teaches:
the current acquisition condition is at least one of a focus of the sensor, a depth of field of the sensor, an exposure period of the sensor (Kundu - Paragraphs 0023, 0094) “automatically and continuously calibrate the focal length of a camera for accurate 3D measurement”
Claims 9-14
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 1-6. Please see the rejections 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 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.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu in view of Zhang (US 20260187979 A1).
Claim 7
Kundu teaches:
receiving, by the controller, a signature of the new SIU (Kundu - Paragraphs 0024-0026, 0094) “a vision sensor system may execute recognition logic, such as a recognition program, for recognizing a type of traffic sign”
Kundu does not teach:
Determining whether the signature of the new SIU is erroneous.
However, Zhang teaches:
determining, by the controller, whether the signature of the new SIU is erroneous (Zhang - Paragraphs 0019-0020) “to recognize misclassifications”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kundu with determining whether a signature of a new SIU is erroneous of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kundu and Zhang both discuss classifying objects for a vehicle system. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the safety of the vehicle (Zhang – Paragraph 0005).
Claim 15
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 7. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu and Zhang, as applied to claims 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Arnicar (US 12235112 B1).
Claim 8
Kundu teaches:
triggering an acquisition of a further SIU, under a further desired acquisition condition that is tailored to solve the error (Kundu - Paragraph 0084-0094) “continuously and automatically calibrating the camera parameters using traffic signs that are detected and recognized”
Kundu does not teach:
Identifying that the signature of the new SIU is erroneous.
However, Zhang teaches:
identifying, by the controller, that the signature of the new SIU is erroneous (Zhang - Paragraphs 0019-0020) “to recognize misclassifications”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kundu with identifying that a signature of a new SIU is erroneous of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kundu and Zhang both discuss classifying objects for a vehicle system. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the safety of the vehicle (Zhang – Paragraph 0005).
Kundu does not teach:
Finding that the source of an error in the new SIU is the sensing unit.
However, Arnicar teaches:
finding, by the controller, that the source of an error in the new SIU is the sensing unit (Arnicar - Col. 10 Line 52 – Col. 11 Line 20, Col. 16 Line 39 – Col. 16 Line 57) “determine whether an inconsistency is caused by an error associated with the sensor data (e.g., the image data 106 or the lidar data 110) or the sensor system(s)”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kundu with finding the source of an error in the new SIU is the sensing unit of Arnicar with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kundu and Arnicar both discuss comparison of sensed data to stored data to determine errors. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows the vehicle to determine the reliability of its systems/components (Col. 1 Line 61 – Col. 2 Line 4).
Claim 16
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 8. Please see the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/TODD MELTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights