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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 16 are currently pending and considered below.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to determining if noise disturbing object detection function of the vehicle when sensors are exposed with high level of noise, and if the noise are too high, then notify the driver. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An object detection device configured to detect an object present in the surroundings of an own vehicle, comprising:
an object detection determination unit that determines, while the object detection condition is valid, whether the object is in a detection state where the object is detected, or the object is in a non-detection state where the object is not detected;
a noise state determination unit that determines, while the object detection condition is valid, whether the reception state of exogenous noise in the object detecting sensor is a high noise state; and
a noise notification processing unit that, when the noise state determination unit determines that the reception state of the exogenous noise is the high noise state, executes a noise related notification corresponding to a generation of a restriction in the object detection function as a result of the high noise state;
wherein the object detection device is configured such that the noise related notification is more readily executed in the detection state than in the non-detection state.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determines …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
An object detection device configured to detect an object present in the surroundings of an own vehicle, comprising:
an object detection determination unit that determines, while the object detection condition is valid, whether the object is in a detection state where the object is detected, or the object is in a non-detection state where the object is not detected;
a noise state determination unit that determines, while the object detection condition is valid, whether the reception state of exogenous noise in the object detecting sensor is a high noise state; and
a noise notification processing unit that, when the noise state determination unit determines that the reception state of the exogenous noise is the high noise state, executes a noise related notification corresponding to a generation of a restriction in the object detection function as a result of the high noise state;
wherein the object detection device is configured such that the noise related notification is more readily executed in the detection state than in the non-detection state.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “executes a noise related notification …,” the examiner submits that this limitation is post solution extra-solution activities that merely use a display or audio device or output devices to perform the process. In particular, the “executes a noise related notification” steps from the vehicle apparatus is recited at a high level of generality.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of t executes a noise related notification … amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer output component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “executes a noise related notification …,” the examiner submits that these limitations are post-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “executes a noise related notification …,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller/processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 3 – 7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3 – 7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3 – 7 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 2 and 8 – 16 recite same or substantially similar limitations as claims 1 and 3 – 7. Therefore claims 2 and 8 – 16 are rejected under same rationales.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gunzel et al. (Hereinafter Gunzel) (US 2021/0173063 A1).
As per claim 1, Gunzel teaches the limitations of:
an object detection device configured to detect an object present in the surroundings of an own vehicle (See at least paragraph 40; The echo image of adjacent ultrasonic sensors is thus evaluated when approaching an object in the transportation vehicle surroundings.), comprising:
an object detection determination unit that determines, while the object detection condition is valid, whether the object is in a detection state where the object is detected, or the object is in a non-detection state where the object is not detected (See at least paragraph 38; Another exemplary embodiment of the disclosed method provides that, when approaching an object, it is checked whether the object is detected via several ultrasonic sensors of a group of ultrasonic sensors. If this condition is affirmed, it is checked whether the object is not detected via an ultrasonic sensor of the group. If the latter condition is affirmed, it is inferred that there is a misalignment of the ultrasonic sensor from the group via which the object was not detected.);
a noise state determination unit that determines, while the object detection condition is valid, whether the reception state of exogenous noise in the object detecting sensor is a high noise state (See at least paragraph 14 and 29; The document also makes use of the crosstalk signals of adjacent ultrasonic sensors caused by structure-borne sound for detecting contamination. If the intensity of a crosstalk signal which is transmitted by a first ultrasonic sensor and which is received by a second, adjacent ultrasonic sensor exceeds a particular threshold value, a functional impairment of the first ultrasonic sensor is established via a noise determination device, … it is conceivable that markedly fluctuating measured values also occur due to intense external noise sources. For this purpose, filter mechanisms are known which check whether such an external malfunction exists, in which all ultrasonic sensors of a bumper are typically affected.); and
a noise notification processing unit that, when the noise state determination unit determines that the reception state of the exogenous noise is the high noise state, executes a noise related notification corresponding to a generation of a restriction in the object detection function as a result of the high noise state (See at least paragraph 53; before determining an existing misalignment of the ultrasonic sensor, at least one sensor-specific parameter of the ultrasonic sensor is measured. In the case of a deviation of the sensor-specific parameter from a standard value, it is inferred that there is a malfunction of the ultrasonic sensor due to noise. Here, the characteristic of ultrasonic sensors may be used in which their sensor-specific values (for example, oscillation amplitude, echoes, decay time, propagation time, power, etc.) change significantly under the influence of a noise source.);
wherein the object detection device is configured such that the noise related notification is more readily executed in the detection state than in the non-detection state (See at least paragraph 14; If the intensity of a crosstalk signal which is transmitted by a first ultrasonic sensor and which is received by a second, adjacent ultrasonic sensor exceeds a particular threshold value, a functional impairment of the first ultrasonic sensor is established via a noise determination device, and a visual or acoustic warning signal is issued to a user.).
As per claim 3, Gunzel teaches the limitations of:
wherein the noise notification processing unit changes execution modes of the noise related notification depending on the probability of a collision of the detected object with the own vehicle (See at least paragraph 53 – 55).
As per claim 4, Gunzel teaches the limitations of:
wherein the noise notification processing unit changes execution modes of the noise related notification depending on the reception state of the exogenous noise (See at least paragraph 53).
As per claim 5, Gunzel teaches the limitations of:
wherein the noise notification processing unit executes the noise related notification using an HMI device provided with a display device, sound output device, and/or haptic device (See at least paragraph 55).
As per claim 6, Gunzel teaches the limitations of:
wherein the object detecting sensor is a sonar sensor, camera, and/or radar sensor (See at least paragraph 53 – 55).
As per claim 6, Gunzel teaches the limitations of:
wherein the frequency of the noise-related notification can be set by the user (See at least paragraph 55).
Regarding claims 2 and 8 – 16:
Claims 2 and 8 – 16 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 and 3 – 7 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koenig et al. (US 2021/0055415 A1) disclsoes method and device for operating ultrasonic sensors of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662