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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments received 06/23/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-6 as set forth below in this Office action.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
423
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the USPTO determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines. Applicant is particularly advised that, under the 2019 PEG, when assessing subject matter eligibility for a patent, examples of “determining or calculating parameters" that might be considered a judicial exception include claims that simply involve basic data manipulation and/or mathematical calculations that can be performed in mind or the aid of a general-purpose computer, without any inventive application of that calculation to a specific technological problem.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of identifying an object of interest such as bush vegetation in the environment of an autonomous vehicle based on conventional LiDAR technology, but without reciting any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see detailed analysis as set forth in sections 3-4 below in this Office action).
While arguing about the practical application with a physical system (e.g., LIDAR, interface and processor), Applicant fails to show that the “additional limitations” such as “a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)”, “an interface configured to receive, from the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), point data of each object and echo pulse width (EPW) values of the point data of each object”, “a processor communicatively or electrically connected to the interface”, etc. go beyond just being used as tools to acquire the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea and/or generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer to implement the identified judicial exception. Further. it is deemed that the recitation of the physical parameters “echo pulse width (EPW) values of the point data of each object”, “EPW-based bush feature”, “OOI determined as the bushes”, etc., under the BRI to the claimed limitations, encompasses merely data characterization which can be viewed as an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological field of detecting objects based on LiDAR point data but does not amount to be meaningful to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, performing a driving control based on a determined OOI encompasses merely an insignificant post-solution activity under the 2019 PEG. Applicant’s arguments in this regard are therefore unpersuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “ … such an effect provides improvements in a technical field of detecting bush”, Examiner asserts that the pending claims of the present application do not provide any qualified improvement under MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a). In addition, as set forth in sections 5-6 and 9 below, all the limitations/elements of the claimed abstract algorithm recited in claims 1-4 and 12-15 have been taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record. The limitation of claims 5-11 and 16-20 are essentially directed to the identified judicial exception but do not amount to be qualified for an improvement. It is held that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception does not amount to be qualified for an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a).
Applicant arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in sections 5-6 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. 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 system for a vehicle, the system comprising:
a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) configured to obtain LiDAR point data for a plurality of objects in a surrounding area of the vehicle;
an interface configured to receive, from [[a]] the 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 an EPW-based bush feature as a candidate bush object among the plurality of objects;
(S2) generate a bush grid map based on point data of the candidate bush object;
(S3) based on point data, among point data of an object of interest (OOI) determined for an association among the plurality of objects, that matches a cell encompassing point data on the bush grid map, determine the OOI as bushes; and
(S4) perform a driving control based on the OOI determined as the bushes.
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 mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations, data manipulation, evaluation and judgment on numbers or mental steps that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen/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. Further, according to the 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.
As to the recited physical parameters/variables, e.g., the EPW values of the point data, EPW-based bush feature, 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 13, 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 “a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) configured to obtain LiDAR point data for a plurality of objects in a surrounding area of the vehicle and 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, these limitations encompass 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.
Under its BRI, the limitation (S4) encompasses an insignificant post-solution activity that does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
None of these elements is considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements of claim 8 as listed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. At most, they only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
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 “a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) configured to obtain LiDAR point data for a plurality of objects in a surrounding area of the vehicle … 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 5-6 and 9 below).
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
5. 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.
6. 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 Alexander et al. (Extraction of vegetation for topographic mapping from full-waveform airborne laser scanning data, SilviLaser 2008: 8th International Conference on Lidar Applications in Forest Assessment and Inventory, Sept. 17-19, 2008).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Wachter discloses a system for a vehicle (Abstract; para. 0035; see also Fig. 2A) and a method for practicing the system (Abstract; para. 0045, 0059), the system comprising: a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) (e.g., 101 in Fig. 1) configured to obtain LiDAR point data for a plurality of objects in a surrounding area of the vehicle (para. 0036, 0057: “The LIDAR device 101, which may be attached to or otherwise associated with an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle”); an interface (e.g., 120 in Fig. 1) configured to receive, from the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), 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”); and a processor (e.g., 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 (e.g., an object to be avoided, excluding air particulates associated with the volumetric medium) which includes feature point data corresponding to an EPW-based target feature (para. 0009: “the determined pulse width may be compared with the reference pulse width by determining a peak amplitude of the received light pulse …”; para. 0051-0052: “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 (e.g., an object or point in the point cloud to be marked with a given color, not including points corresponding to return light pulses that were reflected by fog (or other air particulates) in the scene; see para. 0095) among the plurality of objects (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”; see also para. 0062, 0095); generate a target object 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”; para. 0095: “points corresponding to return light pulses that were reflected by a volumetric medium (such as fog) may be distinguished, e.g., by their colors in this example or by other values in other implementations, from points corresponding to return light pulses that were not reflected by the volumetric medium”); and perform a driving control based on an object of interest (OOI) determined as the target object (para. 0036: “An autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle may use one or more of these point clouds to navigate through the environment without human input”; para. 0045: “… so that the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle can navigate the environment to reach a destination while avoiding obstacles”).
Wachter does not mention explicitly: said target object is a bush object; wherein the processor is further configured to: based on point data, among point data of the object of interest (OOI) determined for an association among the plurality of objects, that matches a cell encompassing point data on the target object grid map, determine the OOI as bushes.
Alexander discloses a technique of classifying object points in LiDAR point clouds (e.g., separating vegetation from roads, buildings and other non-vegetation objects; vegetation is further subdivided based on height into grass (<0.5 m), shrubs (0.5_2.5 m) and trees (>2.5 m) based on point data including pulse width, amplitude, the number of returns, geometric information, etc.; see Abstract; Section 2; Section 3, 3rd – 4th paragraphs; see also discussion of Fig. 1; note, with the BRI, “shrubs” reads on the claimed “bushes”). Specifically, the teaching of Alexander includes: based on said point data, among point data of an object of interest (e.g., vegetation) determined for an association among the plurality of objects (vegetation, roads, trees and buildings, etc.), that matches a cell encompassing point data on a target object grid map (Section 2: “The extracted points were displayed in ArcMapTM using the various attributes…”), determine the OOI as bushes (Section 3: “Local height variation of a point was taken as the difference between the maximum and the minimum elevation values of the nodes of TIN triangles attached to each point. … Elevation was grouped into three – less than 0.5m, 0.5 to 2.5m and greater than 2.5m – and a classification was done using this instead of the actual elevation from the terrain for each of the above methods”; Section 5: “Box-and-whisker plots were used to analyse the various attributes grouped into categories … amplitude seems to be a useful attribute in separating roads from low vegetation. The pulse widths are higher and of a wider range for vegetation than for grass, roads or buildings”).
In view of Alexander’s teaching of point cloud based urban area classification technique, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wachter’s system to include a more sophisticated step of classifying the object points in the point clouds to extract a specific OOI (vegetation) as the target object as taught by Alexander (Section 1: “This study classifies points based on parameters extracted from full-waveform data into vegetation, roads and building roofs”). Doing so would provide an accurate assessment of the specific object (Alexander, Section 6) to be avoided by an autonomous vehicle (Wachter, para. 0016, 0045, 0059), 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 Alexander teaches: said target object is a bush object (see discussion of Alexander for claim 1 above). As such, the combination of Wachter and Alexander renders the claimed invention obvious.
Examiner’s Note
7. 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.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Höfle et al., Urban vegetation detection using radiometrically calibrated small-footprint full-waveform airborne LiDAR data, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 67, 2012
Alexander et al., Classification of vegetation in an open landscape using full-waveform airborne laser scanner data, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 41, 2015
US 20190056497 A1 -- ACCURATE PHOTO DETECTOR MEASUREMENTS FOR LIDAR
Contact Information
10. 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
Prosecution Insights