DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 10/06/2025. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 10, and 14-16 have been amended. Claim(s) 1-16 are pending examination. Objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. Rejection to claim(s) 6 and 10-16 over the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 101 rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 is improper. Applicant argues that the claims represent a concrete and practical application and therefore are not an abstract idea. Accordingly the dependent claims are not abstract ideas.
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-16 is improper. Applicant asserts that the claims as amended are not taught by the prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant alleges on Page 12, “the claimed method improves the operation of the vehicle’s perception system by allowing the down selection of input sensor data.” This argument is not persuasive because this is not claimed in independent claims 1, 10, and 16. This appears to be claimed limitation from dependent claim 4. Therefore applicant’s argument about the integration into a practical application for claims 1, 10, and 16 is unpersuasive. If applicant were to amend the independent claims to include this limitation it may overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. For this reason the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1, 10, and 16; and their respective dependents will remain.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument B, the examiner finds it moot. After further search and consideration the examiner would rely on the newly cited art Sakamoto (US PG Pub 2022/0005352). Sakamoto broadly teaches an alarm device for a vehicle that can detect objects in relation to the position of an ego vehicle. Of particular relevance are paragraphs [0097]-[0106]. These paragraphs teach a weighting system based on the lateral and longitudinal distance an object is from the ego vehicle. The system weights the object’s location based on said distance. These weights vary according to the approximation error, that represents the error in either the lateral or longitudinal direction. As taught in [0138]-[0139] the lateral and longitudinal error is calculated the same way however, they are based on different minimum distances in different directions therefore the variance of the weighting in each direction is different. Based on the incorporation of Bradley and Sakamoto the independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103. Dependent claims would be rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter. See section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for more detailed explanation and mapping.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claim(s) regarding subject matter eligibility utilizing the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is described below.
STEP 1: STATUTORY CATEGORIES
Claim(s) 1-16 do fall into at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories. Claim 1 and its dependents are directed to a method which is the statutory category of a process. Claim 10 and its dependents are directed to a processing unit which is the statutory category of a machine. Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium which is the statutory category of a manufacture.
STEP 2A: JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS
PRONG 1: RECITATION OF A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION
The claim(s) recite(s):
- Claims 1, 10, and 16 recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. The claims are all using similar language so only one explanation will be given. Claim 1 recites, “receiving sensor data associated with locations of detections in a coordinate system having a y-axis and an x-axis;” “assigning a priority value to each of the detections based on its location in the coordinate system;” and “generating output data based on the detections and the assigned priority values, wherein the priority values assigned to the detections vary based on the location of the detections in x-axis and y-axis;” The claim is directed to the steps of receiving data, assigning a score based on some criteria, and outputting some kind of modified data. This could all be reasonably done by a person in their mind using a generic computing device. The scoring system is merely based on a distance from an ego point. A person could reasonably assign some form of a priority score to the received data as it only requires one object to be in the area. There is nothing in the claims that removes it from an abstract idea. Additionally claimed is, “wherein the rate of variation is different between the x-axis and the y-axis.” This would amount to insignificant extrasolution activity.
- Claims 2 and 14 recite, “wherein the rate of variation is selected based on a set of criteria.” This would amount to insignificant extrasolution activity.
- Claims 3 and 15 recite, “wherein the rate of variation is configured to assign areas in the coordinate system with higher priority.” This would amount to insignificant extrasolution activity.
- Claims 4, 12, and 13 recite, “wherein generating output data includes down selection based on the assigned priority values.” This would amount to insignificant extrasolution activity.
- Claim 5 recites, “wherein generating output data includes selecting detections having an assigned priority value above a threshold.” Selecting data that is above a threshold is an abstract idea that a person could do with a generic computing device. The claims only require a person to compare one value to another and if the number is higher then select it.
- Claim 6 recites, “wherein: the threshold is determined based on a number of available processing paths for detections, and generating output data includes selecting a detection to associate with each available processing path based on its assigned priority value.” This would be an abstract idea relating to a metal process. A person with a generic computing device would determine that there is a lack of processing power or a limit on it. The person could then determine which data to forward to the system.
- Claim 7 recites, “forwarding the generated data for downstream processing.” A person using a generic computing device could forward the data to a downstream device. This is merely forwarding generic data and it is a mental process.
- Claim 8 recites, “wherein the rate of variation is configured to assign a higher priority to detections coming from a selected location relative to the ego vehicle.” This would amount to insignificant extrasolution activity.
- Claim 9 recites, “wherein the sensor data is RADAR data.” This would amount to insignificant extrasolution activity.
- Claim 11 recites, “the perception sensor processing unit is an automotive electronic control unit; and an origin of the coordinate system represents an ego vehicle.” This would amount to insignificant extrasolution activity.
PRONG 2: INTEGRATION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The additional element(s) recited in the claim(s) beyond the judicial exception are generic computing device terms and prioritization schemes. The additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element(s) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The computer elements are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and the use of the judicial exception is generally linked to the particular technological environment of autonomous vehicle driving without using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
STEP 2B: INVENTIVE CONCEPT/SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The additional elements recited in the claim(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of a “memory” and a “processor” recited in the claim(s) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (MPEP2106.05 (d)).
Based on the above analysis, claim(S) 1-16 is/are not eligible subject matter and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
As recited above the incorporation of claim 4 into the independent claims may integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US Pat 11,161,464) in view of Sakamoto (US PG Pub 2022/0005352).
Regarding claim 1, Bradley teaches a method for processing perception sensor data in an ego vehicle, (Fig. 1 items 10, 106, and 110; and Col. 7, lines 38-48; teach a system that can process the perceived data around an ego vehicle) the method comprising:
receiving sensor data associated with locations of detections in a coordinate system having a y-axis and an x-axis; (Figs. 2 and 3; and Col. 7, lines 49-62; and Col. 15, lines 44-58; teach the system as able to receive sensor data around the vehicle. Col. 16, lines 6-11; teach that the sensor data is associated with the location of object surrounding the vehicle. Col. 16, lines 12-29; teach that the received data includes the location of a number of points in three dimensional spaces. This 3D space would inherently have at least two axes, i.e. an x and y axis. Therefore as interpreted by the examiner the prior art would teach a coordinate system having an x-axis and a y-axis, as required by the claim.)
assigning a priority value to each of detections based on its location in the coordinate system; (Col. 18, lines 65-67; and Col. 19, lines 1-61; teach assigning a priority classification value to objects detected around the vehicle based on their location. Col. 26, lines 37-55; additionally teaches the assigned priority value based on location) and
generating output data based on the detections and the assigned priority values, (Col. 18, lines 33-64; teach the system having outputs of data to send based on the detected object and its assigned priority. Col. 33, lines 32-40; teach the system outputting data based on the detected object and priority classification.)
wherein the priority values assigned to the detections vary based on the location of the detections in x-axis and y-axis; (Col. 19, lines 11-61; teach the assigned priority values can be based on the location of the object and one or more pre-selected prioritization schemes. Col. 26, lines 37-55; additionally teaches the assigned priority value based on location. These locations vary and the values would indeed vary based on the detections locations in 3D space)
wherein the rate of variation is different (Col. 19, lines 25-44; teaches that the system can have various priority classifications based on the objects position in space, this would include having different schemes for various features which indicate position/location/orientation of the detection)
Bradley does not teach differing rates of variation between the x-axis and y-axis.
However, Sakamoto teaches “between the x-axis and y-axis” ([0097]-[0106] teach a weighting system based on the lateral and longitudinal distance an object is from the ego vehicle. The system weights the object’s location based on said distance. These weights vary according to the approximation error, that represents the error in either the lateral or longitudinal direction. As taught in [0138]-[0139] the lateral and longitudinal error is calculated the same way however, they are based on different minimum distances in different directions therefore the variance of the weighting in each direction is different)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Bradley and Sakamoto; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of vehicle perception systems and are used to determine when and where to prioritize detections of objects. The use of varied rates for different axis would allow for the system to prioritize what is most important at that time. If the vehicle parked lateral detections, such as parked cars next to it, would not be as important as longitudinal detections, such as a wall it is backing into. As Sakamoto teaches in [0024] and [0030] vehicles’ reversing may have static elements that prevent other vehicle’s form contacting them, i.e. a guardrail. By ensuring that these static elements are properly analyzed by weighting the elements differently based on the axis of detection, false alerts for collision are avoided.
Claims 10 and 16 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 2, Bradley teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the rate of variation is selected based on a set of criteria. (Col. 19, lines 11-61; teach the assigned priority values can be based on the location of the object and one or more pre-selected prioritization schemes. The schemes can be based on some form of criteria such as object speed, object distance, ego vehicle speed, etc.)
Claim 14 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 3, Bradley teaches the method of claim 1 wherein rate of variation is configured to assign areas in the coordinate system with higher priority. (Col. 4, lines 9-21; teach the system having certain areas with a higher priority in the system. Col. 18, lines 65-67; and Col. 19, lines 1-61; teach assigning a priority classification value to objects detected around the vehicle based on their location.)
Claim 15 is substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 4, Bradley teaches the method of claim 1 wherein generating output data includes down selection based on the assigned priority values. (Col. 8, lines 49-56; and Col. 18 line 65-67 and Col. 19, lines 1-10; teach the system prioritizing certain data first and prioritizing the transmission of certain data i.e. down selecting the data to send less than the sensed amount of data)
Claims 12 and 13 are substantially similar and would be rejected for the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 5, Bradley teaches the method of claim 1 wherein generating output data includes selecting detections having an assigned priority value above a threshold. (Col. 19, lines 25-61; teach the system selecting data based on an assigned priority above a threshold, i.e. selecting a higher priority data for processing that the lower priority data)
Regarding claim 6, Bradley teaches the method of claim 5 wherein: the threshold is determined based on a number of available processing paths for detections, (Col. 22, lines 24-65; and Col 23, lines 1-14; teach the system collecting data in a certain angular slice, i.e. a channel, the system is configured to have a preset number of slices and can track data based on the number of slices) and generating output data includes selecting a detection to associate with each available processing path based on its assigned priority value. (Fig. 3, and Col. 23, lines 45-67, and Col. 24, lines 1-6; teach the system associating a tracked object based on each slice of sensed data)
Regarding claim 7, Bradley teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising forwarding the generated data for downstream processing. (Col. 18, lines 33-64; teaches the system having a data stream controller that is configured to forward the data to other systems in the processor)
Regarding claim 8, Bradley teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the rate of variation is configured to assign a higher priority to detections coming from a selected location relative to the ego vehicle. (Col. 26, lines 37-55; teach the prioritization scheme may be based on an objects immediate impact on a vehicle this can be based on where the object is relative to the vehicle with certain areas being granted a higher priority than others)
Regarding claim 9, Bradley teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the sensor data is RADAR data. (Col. 16, lines 20-29; teaches the data as being radar data)
Regarding claim 11, Bradley teaches the perception sensor processing unit of claim 10 wherein:
the perception sensor processing unit is an automotive electronic control unit; (Fig. 1, item 106; and Col. 15, lines 44-64; teach the system being implemented on a vehicle electronic control unit) and
an origin of the coordinate system represents an ego vehicle. (Figs. 2 and 3, and Col. 16, lines 12-29; teach the locations in 3D space are relative to the ego vehicle, i.e. the ego vehicle serves as the origin point)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watts (US Pat 11,987,266) teaches a first electronic control unit (ECU) receives zone sensor data of a plurality of zones associated with a vehicle. For instance, a respective second ECU and a respective set of zone sensors is associated with each respective zone of the plurality of zones. Based on an indicated driving mode of the vehicle, the first ECU may perform recognition on the zone sensor data from a first zone of the plurality of zones to determine first recognition information. The first ECU receives second recognition information from the respective second ECUs of the respective zones. For instance, the respective second ECUs are configured to perform recognition processing on respective zone sensor data from the set of zone sensors of the respective zones. Based on the first recognition information and the second recognition information, the first ECU sends at least one control signal to at least one vehicle actuator.
Balter (US PG Pub 2022/0055660) teaches methods of detecting stationary objects are provided. Methods include: receiving sensor signal data including stationary and non-stationary detections from a surrounding environment of the ego-vehicle; determining at least one group of stationary detections which meet one or more lateral position selection criteria based on the lateral position of each stationary detection from a direction faced by the ego-vehicle; determining, at least one group of stationary detections which meet one or more group regularity selection criteria based on the regularity of the differences in position between pairs of sequentially positioned stationary detections in the group in the direction faced by the ego vehicle; determining stationary detections which meet the lateral selection criteria and the group regularity selection criteria for being a group of stationary detections corresponding to at least one stationary object; and removing the stationary detections in corresponding to at least one stationary object from the sensor signal data output.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665