DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
3. Claims 1-20 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of identifying and evaluating a bush object in the environment of an autonomous vehicle based on conventional LiDAR technology.
Specifically, representative claim 13 recites:
A bush detection system, comprising:
an interface configured to receive, from a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), point data of each object and echo pulse width (EPW) values of the point data of each object; and
a processor communicatively or electrically connected to the interface, wherein the processor is configured to:
(S1) based on the EPW values of the point data of each object, determine an object including feature point data corresponding to a bush feature as a candidate bush object;
(S2) generate a grid map based on point data of the candidate bush object; and
(S3) based on point data, among point data of an object of interest (OOI) determined for an association, that matches a cell encompassing point data of the grid map, determine the OOI as bushes; and
(S4) output related information.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System/Apparatus
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each and/or the combination of the limitations (S1), (S2) and (S3) recited in the bolded portion encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking or by a human using a pen and paper.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III
As to the recited physical parameters/variables, e.g., the EPW values of the point data, the bush object, etc., they encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use.
Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 1, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within the “Mental Process” grouping of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Claim 13 recites “an interface configured to receive, from a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), point data of each object and echo pulse width (EPW) values of the point data of each object”. Under its BRI, this limitation encompasses a process or mean of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Thus, the limitation of ““an interface configured to …” amounts to an insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception but is not qualified for significant or meaningful limitations to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitation of “a processor communicatively or electrically connected to the interface … configured to: … ” covers performance of the abstract idea in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Under its BRI, “(S4) output related information” (such as printing or displaying the related information) is treated as insignificant post-solution activity.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. At most, it only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Claim 13 recites “… receive, from a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), point data of each object and echo pulse width (EPW) values of the point data of each object”.
It is deemed that a vehicle’s LiDAR system using pulsed lasers to create a real-time, high-resolution map of its surroundings by measuring the Time of Flight for each pulse to return, generating point cloud data and utilizing Echo Pulse Width values for enhanced object characterization is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art (see discussion of the prior art in sections 4-5).
The claim does not recite any additional element that amounts to an inventive concept or reflects a qualified improvement. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 14-20 inherit attributes of the independent claim 13, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 1-12 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as for claims 13-20 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1-4 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachter et al. (US 20210132197 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 20230134717 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Wachter discloses a system for detecting a target object (e.g., an obstacle to be avoided by an autonomous vehicle) and a method for practicing the system (Abstract; para. 0045, 0059), comprising: an interface (120 in Fig. 1) configured to receive, from a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) (110 in Fig. 1), point data of each object and echo pulse width (EPW) values of the point data of each object (para. 0049: “The photodetectors 121 may be configured to convert the received light pulses 125 into photodetector signals (such as analog current signals) indicative of intensity levels and/or pulse widths of the received light pulses 125”; para. 0051: “The detector circuit 122 may provide the determined intensity levels and characteristics of the received light pulses 125 to the ADC 123, for example, as analog signals containing magnitude information and timing information that may be used to generate a point cloud of a surrounding environment”); and a processor (133 in Fig. 1) communicatively or electrically connected to the interface, wherein the processor is configured to: based on the EPW values of the point data of each object, determine an object including feature point data corresponding to a characteristic feature of the target object (para. 0052: “each of the reference pulse widths stored in the LUT 124 may be indicative of an expected pulse width of a received light pulse 125 having a corresponding amplitude”) as a candidate target object (para. 0036-0038, 0042-0043, 0052-0054: “ … to classify the detected objects as either objects to be avoided (such as by an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle) or as air particulates associated with the volumetric medium”; para. 0062); generate a grid map based on point data of the candidate target object (para. 0059: “… receiving return light pulses reflected by objects in the environment, and generating a point cloud (or some other suitable map of points) indicating the locations, movements, orientations, features, and other characteristics of the detected objects”); and based on point data, among point data of an object of interest (OOI) determined for an association, that matches (e.g., via comparing the amount of pulse elongation of the received light pulses) a cell encompassing point data of the grid map, determine the OOI as the target object and output related information (para. 0059: “The collection of depth-map points that form the point cloud may be analyzed (or otherwise processed) to detect a presence of objects in the environment, … ”; para. 0060: “the accuracy … may be increased by distinguishing between light pulses reflected by an inclined surface (such as a road or street) and light pulses reflected by air particulates associated with a volumetric medium. … the amount of pulse elongation of reflected or return light pulses relative to their corresponding emitted light pulses may be used to determine the features and characteristics of objects detected by the LIDAR device”; para. 0079: “the determined amount of pulse elongation may be used … to distinguish between light pulses reflected by debris and other small foreign objects on a road and light pulses reflected by the road. Information indicative of such distinctions and/or indicative of the determined amounts of pulse elongation may be used to identify such debris and other small foreign objects left on the road surface, which in turn may increase the accuracy with which point clouds or 3D maps generated by a LIDAR system represent objects, surfaces, and other features of the surrounding environment”; see also para. 0080).
Wachter does not mention explicitly: said target object is a bush object.
Xu teaches a LiDAR system configured to identify and evaluate potential obstacles in the environment of an autonomous vehicle (para. 0072), wherein said obstacles include a bush object (para. 0082, 0088).
Since Wachter the general conditions of the target object to be avoided by an autonomous vehicle (para. 0016, 0045, 0059), it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wachter’s system to detect a bush object, as an intended use of the Wachter invention, as being motivated by Xu. It is deemed that the skilled person in the art would conceive and apply such a modification without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. And, doing so would allow for accurately capturing the locations of background objects which is crucial to the quality of background filtering (Xu, para. 0082), thus improving the applicability of the Wachter detection system.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Wachter discloses: wherein the determining the object including the feature point data as the candidate bush object includes: determining, as the feature point data, point data including EPW values greater than or equal to a predetermined reference EPW value among the point data of each object (para. 0041: “compare the determined pulse width with a reference pulse width, and may determine the amount of pulse elongation based on the comparison”; para. 0065 and Fig. 3B), and storing the feature point data in a feature point array of a corresponding object (para. 0054: “may use the indicated amount of pulse elongation to classify the detected objects …”; see also para. 0079).
Regarding claim 3, Wachter discloses: wherein the point data of each object is located within a predetermined distance from a vehicle (para. 0036, 0045).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Wachter discloses: wherein the determining the object including the feature point data as the candidate bush object is performed based on a length of a longest side of an object box of the object including the feature point data (para. 0038: “The spreading of a reflected light pulse relative to a corresponding emitted light pulse, referred to herein as pulse elongation, may be indicative of the features or characteristics of an object detected by the LIDAR device”; para. 0039-0043).
Regarding claim 12, Wachter discloses: wherein the OOI determined as the target object is excluded from an OOI for the association (para. 0059-0060, 0079-0080). Wachter does not but Xu teaches: said target object is a bush object. As such, the combination of Wachter and Xu renders the claimed invention obvious.
Examiner’s Note
6. While there are related references that discuss identifying and evaluating potential obstacles in the environment of an autonomous vehicle based on LiDAR technology, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the claimed limitations including: converting candidate bush point data of a previous time step frame of the candidate bush object into candidate bush point data based on a current time step frame by compensating for a movement amount for each frame based on a movement amount of a vehicle at acquisition of each frame of the candidate bush object, wherein the point data of the candidate bush object includes the converted candidate bush point data obtained by the converting, as recited in instant claims 5-11 and 16-20. It is these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 1 or 13, that would make the claims 5-11 and 16-20 of the present application distinguish over the prior art of record.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857