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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-2. 4. 6-12, 14-20, and 23-24 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 9-10, and 15 are currently amended, claims 3, 15, 13, and 21-22 are cancelled and claims 23-24 are new.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended Claim 1 recites patent eligible subject matter that satisfies the two-step analysis presented in MPEP 2106.
At the Step I inquiry, the amended Claim I recites a method implemented in a processor in an autonomous vehicle and thus satisfies Step 1.
Regarding the Step 2A, the Office Action contends that Claim I recites the mental process. See Page 6 of the Final Office Action. In this regard, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) describes that "Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equinped to perform the claim limitations. See SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims").
The amended Claim 1 recites the specific limitations of the claimed method implemented by a processor disposed in the autonomous vehicle and the human mind is not equipped to perform the particular claim limitations, which include, for example, "receiving images from one or more sensors on the autonomous vehicle, applying a detection algorithm stored in the processor on the images, identifying a same vehicle in each of the first bounding box in the first cropped image and the second bounding box in the second cropped image, fusing the images to generate an output result for the same vehicle in a virtual focal plane, selecting and cropping one or more regions of interest in at least one of the images, establishing a photometric correspondence between cropped images using cropping information or camera pose". (emphases
added). As such, the amended Claim 1 does not recite a metal process and thus does not correspond to the abstract ideas.
In addition, even assuming that Claim 1 does not satisfy the Step 2A analysis, the Step 2B analysis is performed as to whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this regard, the MPEP 2106.05 describes the following limitations found by the courts to qualify as "significant more" when recited in a claim.
"v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application. e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as
discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350- 51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization
step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of
immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic
immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v.
Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e))."
The specification of the present application identifies the technical problem related to the conventional object detection which requires many processing whose interrelation could be burdensome for downstream system. See para. [0029] of the present application. In recognition of the technical problem, the present application provides the technical solutions that can reduce the amount of information that needs to be processed by downstream modules by reciting the claimed limitations. Such claimed features are not well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field and correspond to the meaning limitations, which enables to reduce the amount of information processed by downstream modules and advantageously improve autonomous vehicle operation See para. [0063] of the present application.
Thus, the amended Claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and satisfies the Step 2B analysis.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite identifying a first bounding box in a first image and a second bounding box in a second image, wherein the first bounding box and the second bounding box are associated with metadata providing information corresponding to a same object; identify, based on metadata in the images, a first bounding box in a first image and a second bounding box in a second image, wherein the first bounding box and the second bounding box correspond to a same object. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a detection algorithm stored in a processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as images data and metadata of images, and vehicle type classification data could identify a first bounding box in a first image and a second bounding box in a second image, wherein the first bounding box and the second bounding box are associated with metadata providing information corresponding to a common object; identify, based on metadata in the images, a first bounding box in a first image and a second bounding box in a second image, wherein the first bounding box and the second bounding box correspond to a common object. The mere nominal recitation of “a detection algorithm stored in a processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving images from one or more sensors installed in the vehicle; generating an output including a fusion of the first image and the second image in a virtual focal plane, the output having a size smaller than a sum of a size of the first image and a size of the second image; wherein the same object comprises a vehicle, the output comprises a vehicle type classification that is a majority vote based on a detected vehicle type classification in the first image and the second image; selecting and cropping one or more regions of interest in at least one of the images; and establishing a photometric correspondence between cropped images using cropping information or camera pose; a plurality of sensors; processor; and a memory with instructions thereon, applying, on the images, a detection algorithm stored in the processor; and a computer-readable storage medium having code stored thereon. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (images metadata, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating, selecting, outputting, and establishing steps which includes the output to comprise a vehicle type classification that is a majority vote is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The plurality of sensors are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) of a processor; and a memory with instructions thereon, applying, on the images, a detection algorithm stored in the processor; and a computer-readable storage medium having code stored thereon are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Furthermore, Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, generating, applying, selecting and establishing steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained herein.
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 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite identifying a first bounding box in a first image and a second bounding box in a second image, wherein the first bounding box and the second bounding box are associated with metadata providing information corresponding to a same object; identify, based on metadata in the images, a first bounding box in a first image and a second bounding box in a second image, wherein the first bounding box and the second bounding box correspond to a same object. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a detection algorithm stored in a processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as images data and metadata of images, and vehicle type classification data could identify a first bounding box in a first image and a second bounding box in a second image, wherein the first bounding box and the second bounding box are associated with metadata providing information corresponding to a common object; identify, based on metadata in the images, a first bounding box in a first image and a second bounding box in a second image, wherein the first bounding box and the second bounding box correspond to a common object. The mere nominal recitation of “a detection algorithm stored in a processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving images from one or more sensors installed in the vehicle; generating an output including a fusion of the first image and the second image in a virtual focal plane, the output having a size smaller than a sum of a size of the first image and a size of the second image; wherein the same object comprises a vehicle, the output comprises a vehicle type classification that is a majority vote based on a detected vehicle type classification in the first image and the second image; selecting and cropping one or more regions of interest in at least one of the images; and establishing a photometric correspondence between cropped images using cropping information or camera pose; a plurality of sensors; processor; and a memory with instructions thereon, applying, on the images, a detection algorithm stored in the processor; and a computer-readable storage medium having code stored thereon. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (images metadata, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating, selecting, outputting, and establishing steps which includes the output to comprise a vehicle type classification that is a majority vote is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The plurality of sensors are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) of a processor; and a memory with instructions thereon, applying, on the images, a detection algorithm stored in the processor; and a computer-readable storage medium having code stored thereon are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, generating, applying, selecting, and establishing steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 16-20, and 23-24 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.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 (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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights