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 This communication is in response to the application filed on 4/10/2007. The IDS received on 11/30/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for LiDAR-based object perception, specifically for detecting and tracking small traffic equipment. The claims recite steps of acquiring LiDAR data, processing data to detect objects, filtering by size, clustering, tracking, and outputting information. With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, Claim 1 is directed to organizing and analyzing information, a judicial exception (abstract idea), as they recite collecting, filtering, and grouping data—mental processes that can be performed by a human with pen and paper, or by a generic computer. Claims 11 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 11 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1 . Claims 2-10 and 12-20 further describe the process for selecting and viewing organizational information and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/ mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, Claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of a generic LiDAR sensor, processor, and Computer-readable merely indicates the use of generic computer components as tools to perform the abstract idea. There is no improvement to the operation of the computer, LiDAR sensor, or other technology. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. As noted above, claims 11 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further includes a processor and computer-readable, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims11 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend. As a result, claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above. With respect to Step 2B of the framework, C laim 1 do not include additional elements, either individually or as an ordered combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The use of generic processors, sensors, and memory to implement data processing and clustering is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The steps are performed in a conventional manner and do not add an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B. As noted above, claims 11 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1 . Although claim 11 further includes a processor and computer-readable, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend. As a result, claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are implemented using generic computer components (LiDAR sensor, processor, memory) and do not recite an improvement to computer functionality or other technology. Thus, the claims do not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chun et al. “US 2023/0069691 A1” (Chun) . Regarding Claim 1: A LiDAR-based object perception method comprising: determining objects by acquiring LiDAR data of a surrounding environment through data processing (at least see Chun Abstract; Fig. 1; [0011]) ; selecting, from the objects, candidate objects having a size equal to or smaller than a predetermined size; determining at least one object cluster by grouping the candidate objects according to a predetermined position condition (at least see Chun Abstract; Fig s . 7-9 ; [00 26 ]) ; and outputting information about at least one first cluster from the at least one object cluster (at least see Chun Abstract; Fig s . 2-3 ; [00 20 ]) . Regarding Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined size comprises a longitudinal size and a transverse size (at least see Chun [0115 ]) . Regarding Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined position condition comprises a distance condition and an angle range condition between the candidate objects (at least see Chun [0105 ]) . Regarding Claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining at least one candidate cluster of the at least one object cluster according to a predetermined cluster condition; and determining, from the at least one candidate cluster and as the at least one first cluster, at least one small-traffic-equipment cluster (at least see Chun [0013 ] -[0017] ) . Regarding Claim 5: The method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined cluster condition comprises at least one of a first condition such that a quantity of the candidate objects in the at least one object cluster is equal to or greater than a first predetermined value, a second condition such that a sum of distances between the candidate objects is equal to or greater than a second predetermined value, a third condition such that an average distance between the candidate objects is equal to or less than a third predetermined value, and a fourth condition such that a longitudinal distance from a host vehicle to the at least one candidate cluster is equal to or less than a fourth predetermined value (at least see Chun Abstract; Fig. 3 ; [0011] -[0013] ) . Regarding Claim 6: The method of claim 4, wherein determining the at least one first cluster comprises determining at least one closest candidate cluster closest to a left side or a right side of a host vehicle among the at least one candidate cluster, and determining the at least one small-traffic-equipment cluster among the at least one closest candidate cluster (at least see Chun [0011]) . Regarding Claim 7: The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a new tracking region for the at least one first cluster or updating a tracking region of a previous time frame based on a correlation between a region of a current time frame of the at least one first cluster and the tracking region of the previous time frame (at least see Chun [0075 ]) . Regarding Claim 8: The method according to claim 7, wherein the correlation is determined based on a predicted region in the current time frame which is predicted from the tracking region of the previous time frame (at least see Chun [0003 ]) . Regarding Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein outputting the information comprises assigning flags indicating small-traffic-equipment to objects belonging to the at least one first cluster (at least see Chun [00 26 ]) . Regarding Claim 10: The method of claim 9, further comprising determining and tracking a predetermined number of objects according to a predetermined priority order, wherein small objects having a time-frame- based age of a predetermined value or less are excluded from the tracking except for the objects to which the flags indicating the small-traffic-equipment are assigned (at least see Chun [0045 ]) . Regarding Claims 11-20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-10 . Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7121 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ryan Zeender can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6790 . 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. /FATEH M OBAID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627