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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I. drawn to claims 1-15 in the reply filed on September 11, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant contends the examiner has failed to provide factual results for separate status in the art in view of different classification, for separate status in the art due to recognized divergent subject matter, and for different fields of search required for a proper prior art search. This is not found persuasive because, as applicant themselves admits, the examiner stated the search burden consisted of “searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries". The examiner acknowledges that the different species do contain overlap in claim scope. However, the species are not identical and would require different search queries to properly search the different species. In fact, applicant’s claim chart provided in the response highlights this as well as the information used to generate the first motion command is different, would have a different claim scope, and would require different search queries to determine allowability. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-15 are examined below and claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 29, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of correlating the first cluster of pixels and the second cluster of pixels with a first object in the field of view of the depth sensor; aggregating the first cluster of pixels and the second cluster of pixels into a first three- dimensional object representation of the first object; classifying the first object into the first object class based on congruence between the first three-dimensional object representation of the first object and the first geometry of the first object class; characterizing motion of the first object at the second time based on positions and radial velocities of surfaces represented by the first cluster of pixels and the second cluster of pixels as recited in independent claim 1.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“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”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “accessing a first depth map generated by a depth sensor arranged on a vehicle, the first depth map comprising a first set of pixels representing relative positions of a first set of surfaces relative to a field of view of the depth sensor and annotated with radial velocities of the first set of surfaces at a first time; detecting a first cluster of pixels, in the first set of pixels, exhibiting congruent radial velocities; accessing a second depth map generated by the depth sensor, the second depth map comprising a second set of pixels representing relative positions of a second set of surfaces relative to the field of view of the depth sensor and annotated with radial velocities of the second set of surfaces at a second time; detecting a second cluster of pixels, in the second set of pixels, exhibiting congruent radial velocities; accessing a first geometry, of a first object class, representing a first group of three- dimensional object representations characteristic of analogous object geometries; accessing a first set of motion characteristics of the first object class” are also insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the limitation “generating a first motion command based on the motion of the first object at the second time and the first set of motion characteristics of the first object class” merely uses generic computing components (“remote computer system”) but also constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: (1) “remote computer system”; (2) “controller” and (3) “autonomous vehicle” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)) and are not positively recited in the method claims. The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
As for dependent claims 2-15, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.
The specification does recite structure used in the method. The specification ¶ [0032] states “controller can … control actuators within the vehicle (e.g., accelerator, brake, and steering actuators) according to these navigation decisions.” This structure is not directed to basic concepts that are similar to any abstract ideas previously identified by the courts. Accordingly, incorporating such into the claim language in some form may overcome the present rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleyer et al., US2020/0279436 A1 in view of Zeng et al., US2016/0291149 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Bleyer teaches a method comprising, during a first time period:
accessing a first depth map generated by a depth sensor arranged on a vehicle, the first depth map comprising a first set of pixels representing relative positions of a first set of surfaces relative to a field of view of the depth sensor and annotated with radial velocities of the first set of surfaces at a first time; (Bleyer, see at least ¶ [0036] “Initially, a plurality of depth maps for an environment are obtained (act 105). At least some of these depth maps correspond to different perspectives or angles of the environment. A motion state identifier for at least some (or all) of the pixels in each of at least some (or all) of the depth maps is then assigned (act 110). Notably, a motion state identifier identifies whether a corresponding pixel is associated with a dynamic/moving object in the environment or, alternatively, with a static object in the environment.”)
detecting a first cluster of pixels, in the first set of pixels, exhibiting congruent radial velocities; (Bleyer, see at least ¶ [0036] “Initially, a plurality of depth maps for an environment are obtained (act 105). At least some of these depth maps correspond to different perspectives or angles of the environment. A motion state identifier for at least some (or all) of the pixels in each of at least some (or all) of the depth maps is then assigned (act 110). Notably, a motion state identifier identifies whether a corresponding pixel is associated with a dynamic/moving object in the environment or, alternatively, with a static object in the environment.”)
accessing a second depth map generated by the depth sensor, the second depth map comprising a second set of pixels representing relative positions of a second set of surfaces relative to the field of view of the depth sensor and annotated with radial velocities of the second set of surfaces at a second time; (Bleyer, see at least ¶ [0036] “Initially, a plurality of depth maps for an environment are obtained (act 105). At least some of these depth maps correspond to different perspectives or angles of the environment. A motion state identifier for at least some (or all) of the pixels in each of at least some (or all) of the depth maps is then assigned (act 110). Notably, a motion state identifier identifies whether a corresponding pixel is associated with a dynamic/moving object in the environment or, alternatively, with a static object in the environment.”)
detecting a second cluster of pixels, in the second set of pixels; (Bleyer, see at least ¶ [0038] “Notably, the 3D mesh is based, at least partially, on different depth maps and is built by incorporating, into the composite 3D mesh, pixel information identified by the motion state identifiers as being associated with one or more static objects in the environment while omitting (or not considering) pixel information identified by the motion state identifiers as being associated with one or more moving objects in the environment in the composite 3D mesh. In this manner, the disclosed embodiments perform front-end filtering of pixel data associated with moving objects by determining which pixels correspond to moving objects and then preventing the information for those pixels from being used to generate (or be included in) the resulting 3D mesh.”)
correlating the first cluster of pixels and the second cluster of pixels with a first object in the field of view of the depth sensor; (Bleyer, see at least ¶ [0038] “Notably, the 3D mesh is based, at least partially, on different depth maps and is built by incorporating, into the composite 3D mesh, pixel information identified by the motion state identifiers as being associated with one or more static objects in the environment while omitting (or not considering) pixel information identified by the motion state identifiers as being associated with one or more moving objects in the environment in the composite 3D mesh. In this manner, the disclosed embodiments perform front-end filtering of pixel data associated with moving objects by determining which pixels correspond to moving objects and then preventing the information for those pixels from being used to generate (or be included in) the resulting 3D mesh.”)
aggregating the first cluster of pixels and the second cluster of pixels into a first three- dimensional object representation of the first object; (Bleyer, see at least ¶ [0038] “Notably, the 3D mesh is based, at least partially, on different depth maps and is built by incorporating, into the composite 3D mesh, pixel information identified by the motion state identifiers as being associated with one or more static objects in the environment while omitting (or not considering) pixel information identified by the motion state identifiers as being associated with one or more moving objects in the environment in the composite 3D mesh. In this manner, the disclosed embodiments perform front-end filtering of pixel data associated with moving objects by determining which pixels correspond to moving objects and then preventing the information for those pixels from being used to generate (or be included in) the resulting 3D mesh.”)
accessing a first geometry, of a first object class, representing a first group of three- dimensional object representations characteristic of analogous object geometries; (Bleyer, see at least ¶ [0059] “By altering the size and configuration of the triangles that form the composite 3D mesh 810, the triangles are able to accurately portray the geometric surfaces of any objects located within a particular environment. As described earlier, however, problems arise when reconstructing geometric surfaces of an environment that includes moving objects. Therefore, it is particularly beneficial to use the motion state identifiers to make a decision as to whether an object is moving or is stationary. By making this initial determination, then the embodiments are able to prevent the pixel information for moving objects from being included in the composite 3D mesh. In this manner, the embodiments perform front-end processing to filter out pixel information as opposed to back-end processing. Oftentimes, performing front-end processing significantly reduces the overall complexity of the computations that are performed as compared to back-end post-processing, such as the case in the “clean up later” approach.”)
classifying the first object into the first object class based on congruence between the first three-dimensional object representation of the first object and the first geometry of the first object class; (Bleyer, see at least ¶ [0059] “By altering the size and configuration of the triangles that form the composite 3D mesh 810, the triangles are able to accurately portray the geometric surfaces of any objects located within a particular environment. As described earlier, however, problems arise when reconstructing geometric surfaces of an environment that includes moving objects. Therefore, it is particularly beneficial to use the motion state identifiers to make a decision as to whether an object is moving or is stationary. By making this initial determination, then the embodiments are able to prevent the pixel information for moving objects from being included in the composite 3D mesh. In this manner, the embodiments perform front-end processing to filter out pixel information as opposed to back-end processing. Oftentimes, performing front-end processing significantly reduces the overall complexity of the computations that are performed as compared to back-end post-processing, such as the case in the “clean up later” approach.”)
accessing a first set of motion characteristics of the first object class; (Bleyer, see at least ¶ [0068] “Some embodiments use deep learning to derive or determine whether an object is moving. To do so, end-to-end learning may be applied where a number of consecutive depth images and their poses serve as input to a machine learning algorithm (e.g., a neural network). The output of the machine learning algorithm is a label map (e.g., the motion state identifiers) detailing whether an object is moving or is static. Prior to this process, the machine learning algorithm is trained using a predetermined set of truth data so that the machine learning algorithm can later make its own determinations based on its training.”)
Bleyer does not specifically teach the following. However, Zeng suggests characterizing motion of the first object at the second time based on positions and radial velocities of surfaces represented by the first cluster of pixels and the second cluster of pixels; (Zeng, see at least ¶ [0032] “From the above discussion, is it apparent that an improved fusion/tracking technique is needed which can accurately estimate the 2-D velocity of the remote vehicle 50. Such a technique can be realized by fusing camera image data (i.e., vision data) with radar return data. In the fusion technique discussed below, the radar return data provides accurate radial velocity, as described above. At the same time, salient points (i.e., prominent or conspicuous points) in the camera image data can provide accurate lateral or tangential velocity. That is, instead of merely treating the remote vehicle 50 as a single object for tracking purposes, multiple features from the remote vehicle 50 are individually tracked in the images. In order to improve the quality and reliability of the results, salient vision points can be associated with radar points using position proximity in the image plane, and using previously estimated object velocity as cueing. Salient vision points with different lateral speed than expected based on current and previous measurements can be removed from the calculation.” and
generating a first motion command based on the motion of the first object at the second time and the first set of motion characteristics of the first object class. (Zeng, see at least ¶ [0004] “Object detection systems, also known as object sensing systems, have become increasingly common in modern vehicles. Object detection systems can provide a warning to a driver about an object in the path of a vehicle. Object detection systems can also provide input to active vehicle systems—such as Adaptive Cruise Control, which controls vehicle speed to maintain appropriate longitudinal spacing to a leading vehicle, and Rear Cross Traffic Avoidance systems, which can provide both warnings and automatic braking to avoid a collision with an object behind a host vehicle when the host vehicle is backing up.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bleyer with those of Zeng as both relate to electronic object detection systems that utilize sensors and cameras. (Zeng, see at least ¶ [0002] “This invention relates generally to a multiple-input object detection system and, more particularly, to a rear cross traffic avoidance system which combines camera-based and radar-based object data to track rear cross traffic objects, including a more accurate estimation of lateral velocity of the objects than would be possible with radar data alone.”) In addition, this would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668