DETAILED ACTION
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
2. 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 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.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-9 are to a machine and claims 10-18 are to a process. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts:
1. A vehicle, comprising:
a sensor comprising one or more sensors configured to obtain information about a target object present around the vehicle, the one or more sensors comprising a LiDAR sensor; and a sensor information fusion device comprising a processor configured to control to generate or maintain a sensor fusion track using the information about the target object provided by the sensor, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a length of the sensor fusion track using a partial LiDAR (PL) track in which a portion of the target object is detected in a boundary area of the LiDAR sensor; and estimate an edge point in a shape reconstructed based on the length of the sensor fusion track.
10. An absorption and merging method in a vehicle comprising a sensor comprising one or more sensors comprising a LiDAR sensor and configured to obtain information about a target object present around the vehicle, and a sensor information fusion device comprising a processor configured to control to generate or maintain a sensor fusion track using the information about the target object provided by the sensing device, comprising:
determining, by the processor, a length of the sensor fusion track using a partial LiDAR (PL) track in which only a portion of the target object is detected in a boundary area of the LiDAR sensor; and
estimating, by the processor, an edge point in a shape reconstructed based on the length of the sensor fusion track.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Thus, the limitations "to generate or maintain a sensor fusion track using the information about the target object provided by the sensor" amount to a description in words to manipulate numerical sensor data to combine such data to generate a sensor fusion track as output. The limitations to "determine a length of the sensor fusion track using a partial LiDAR (PL) track in which a portion of the target object is detected in a boundary area of the LiDAR sensor" describe mathematical geometrical calculations to solve for a length of the sensor fusion track according to an overlap of the target object with a boundary area. The limitations to "estimate an edge point in a shape reconstructed based on the length of the sensor fusion track" describe in words the solving of a numerical edge point value out of a geometrical shape reconstructed based on the length of the fusion track. The limitations of "an absorption and merging method" describe mathematical processing steps to combine different sets of data. The analysis of the EPG Court is particularly applicable to the claims in the present case: "Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category," (see Electronic Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pg. 7).
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the recitation of "a vehicle" amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); (2) the recitation of "a sensor comprising one or more sensors configured to obtain information about a target object present around the vehicle, the one or more sensors comprising a LiDAR sensor" amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106,05(g)); and (3) the recitations of "a sensor information fusion device comprising a processor configured to control," "wherein the processor is further configured to," and "by the processor," amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. Similarly underlined above, the recitation of "a vehicle" does not add significantly more because such a general description amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). In addition, the the recitation of "a sensor comprising one or more sensors configured to obtain information about a target object present around the vehicle, the one or more sensors comprising a LiDAR sensor" does not add significantly more because such limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106,05(g)), and do not describe any gathering of data in an unconventional way or using a particular structural arrangement. The recitations of "a sensor information fusion device comprising a processor configured to control," "wherein the processor is further configured to," and "by the processor," do not add significantly more because such limitations amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer equipment is considered insignificant additional elements. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94).
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical calculations to describe further additional data calculation steps to solve for intermediate values as carried out as part of the overall mathematical algorithm, or under the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts in the selecting and comparing of various data values.
3. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated information of an "edge point" to drive a transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Harrison (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0375425) at least teaches a vehicle (Harrison abstract teaches an ego vehicle), comprising:
a sensor comprising one or more sensors configured to obtain information about a target object present around the vehicle, the one or more sensors comprising a LiDAR sensor (Harrison paragraph [0016] teaches where the vehicle comprises multiple perception sensors, including a lidar 104, for detecting targets outside the vehicle); and
a sensor information fusion device comprising a processor (Harrison paragraph [0026] teaches where a sensor fusion module may comprise a system controller (processor)) configured to control to generate or maintain a sensor fusion track using the information about the target object provided by the sensor (Harrison paragraphs [0014] and [0026] teach where the sensor fusion module combines data from different perception sensors to perceive its environment more accurately and enhance target detection and identification, and paragraphs [0031]-[0032] teach where the sensor fusion module receives tracking information to track identified targets over time as a sensor fusion track)).
5. However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Harrison (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0375425) fails to anticipate or render obvious a vehicle comprising: wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a length of the sensor fusion track using a partial LiDAR (PL) track in which a portion of the target object is detected in a boundary area of the LiDAR sensor; and estimate an edge point in a shape reconstructed based on the length of the sensor fusion track, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 10 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Harrison (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0375425) fails to anticipate or render obvious an absorption and merging method in a vehicle comprising: determining, by the processor, a length of the sensor fusion track using a partial LiDAR (PL) track in which only a portion of the target object is detected in a boundary area of the LiDAR sensor; and estimating, by the processor, an edge point in a shape reconstructed based on the length of the sensor fusion track, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
6. Dependent claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1. Dependent claims 11-18 depend from claim 10 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 10.
Pertinent Art
7. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Zeng et al. (US Pat. No. 10,395,144) discloses a Deeply Integrated Fusion Architecture for Automated Driving Systems.
C. Altman et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2007/0073473) discloses System and Method of Target Tracking Using Sensor Fusion.
D. Han et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0118441) discloses Apparatus and Method for Identifying Close Cut-in Vehicle and Vehicle Including Apparatus.
E. Golov (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0156651) discloses Sensor Fusion to Determine Reliability of Autonomous Vehicle Operation.
F. Xing et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0174112) discloses Method and Apparatus for Enhanced Camera and Radar Sensor Fusion.
G. Jo et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0191907) discloses ODM Information Reliability Determination System and Method and Vehicle Using the Same.
H. Das et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0214444) discloses LiDAR and Radar Based Tracking and Mapping System and Method Thereof.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 4/1/2026
Prosecution Insights