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 .
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 an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Regarding claim 1, the claim incudes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from one or more sensors, sensor data for an area surrounding a vehicle;
determining, based on the sensor data, features within a top view representation of the area surrounding the vehicle, wherein the top view representation comprises: (i) an outer contour that defines an outer limit of the top view representation and (ii) an inner contour positioned within the outer contour, the inner contour defining an inner limit of the top view representation; and
determining, based on the features within the top view representation, vehicle instructions for the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. A human can observe an area around a vehicle and the human can determine features (objects) in a top view representation and draw from the top view representation (perspective) an inner contour and an outer contour around the vehicle. Further, the ”determining, based on the features within the top view representation, vehicle instructions for the vehicle”, is a mental process of the human observing the features and determining what the vehicle should do with respect to a feature without the vehicle actual performing the determination.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from one or more sensors, sensor data for an area surrounding a vehicle;
determining, based on the sensor data, features within a top view representation of the area surrounding the vehicle, wherein the top view representation comprises: (i) an outer contour that defines an outer limit of the top view representation and (ii) an inner contour positioned within the outer contour, the inner contour defining an inner limit of the top view representation; and
determining, based on the features within the top view representation, vehicle instructions for the vehicle.
Whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional limitation (or combination of limitations) may have integrated the judicial exception 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 effect 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.
It is clear that Applicant’s claim does not comprise any of the above additional limitations that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
While the PEG further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the PEG also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f));
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element “receiving, from one or more sensors, sensor data for an area surrounding a vehicle” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here the receive functions were considered to be insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, and thus the additional element()s are/is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional element(s) are/is more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Regarding the additional element “receiving, from one or more sensors, sensor data for an area surrounding a vehicle”, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 2 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the inner contour is defined to exclude a portion of the area that contains the vehicle from the top view representation.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human excluding the vehicle during drawing of the top view representation of the inner contour and the outer contour around the vehicle.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 3 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the inner contour is centered at the vehicle, and wherein a radius of the inner contour varies as a function of an angle relative to the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human drawing the inner contour by centering it at the vehicle, and changing a radius of the contour as a function of an angle relative to the vehicle in the top view representation.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 4 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the inner contour is defined based on an exterior contour of the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human drawing the outer contour by having it centered at the vehicle and then drawing the inner contour based on the outer contours centering.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 5 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the inner contour is defined based on sensing capabilities for at least a subset of the one or more sensors.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 6 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
6. The method of claim 3, wherein the inner contour is defined based on an operating mode of the vehicle.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the outer contour defines a limit of the area in which detected features are used to determine vehicle instructions for the vehicle.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 8 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
8. The method of claim 7, wherein a radius of the outer contour varies as a function of an angle relative to the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human drawing the outer by changing a radius of the contour as a function of an angle relative to the vehicle in the top view representation.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
9. The method of claim 7, wherein the outer contour is determined based on sensing capabilities of at least a subset of the one or more sensors.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the outer contour is circular in shape with a radius determined based on sensing capabilities for at least one of the one or more sensors.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
11. The method of claim 7, wherein the outer contour is defined based on an operating mode of the vehicle.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 12 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the inner contour is off-center relative to the outer contour.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human drawing the inner contour off-center relative to the outer contour.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the top view representation comprises a plurality of cells, wherein determining the features comprises projecting the features into corresponding cells, and wherein the cells are located between the inner contour and the outer contour.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human drawing cells between the contours and then drawing features in the cells..
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 14 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the cells are formed from curved rays, non-contiguous rays, or a combination thereof.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human drawing the cells by drawing rays.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
15. The method of claim 13, wherein the top view representation includes at least one region with a higher cell density.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human drawing more cells in an area between the contours than another area within the contours.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”.
16. An apparatus, comprising: a memory storing processor-readable code; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations including:
receiving, from one or more sensors, sensor data for an area surrounding a vehicle;
determining, based on the sensor data, features within a top view representation of the area surrounding the vehicle, wherein the top view representation comprises: (i) an outer contour that defines an outer limit of the top view representation and (ii) an inner contour positioned within the outer contour, the inner contour defining an inner limit of the top view representation; and
determining, based on the features within the top view representation, vehicle instructions for the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. A human can observe an area around a vehicle and the human can determine features (objects) in a top view representation and draw from the top view representation (perspective) an inner contour and an outer contour around the vehicle. Further, the ”determining, based on the features within the top view representation, vehicle instructions for the vehicle”, is a mental process of the human observing the features and determining what the vehicle should do with respect to a feature without the vehicle actual performing the determination.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
16. An apparatus, comprising: a memory storing processor-readable code; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations including:
receiving, from one or more sensors, sensor data for an area surrounding a vehicle;
determining, based on the sensor data, features within a top view representation of the area surrounding the vehicle, wherein the top view representation comprises: (i) an outer contour that defines an outer limit of the top view representation and (ii) an inner contour positioned within the outer contour, the inner contour defining an inner limit of the top view representation; and
determining, based on the features within the top view representation, vehicle instructions for the vehicle.
Whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional limitation (or combination of limitations) may have integrated the judicial exception 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 effect 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.
It is clear that Applicant’s claim does not comprise any of the above additional limitations that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
While the PEG further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the PEG also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f));
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of the memory and processor are merely tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and merely are used to automate the determining functions.
The additional element “receiving, from one or more sensors, sensor data for an area surrounding a vehicle” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here the receive functions were considered to be insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, and thus the additional element()s are/is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional element(s) are/is more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Regarding the additional element “receiving, from one or more sensors, sensor data for an area surrounding a vehicle”, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 17 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
17. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the inner contour is centered at the vehicle, and wherein a radius of the inner contour varies as a function of an angle relative to the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human drawing the inner contour by centering it at the vehicle, and changing a radius of the contour as a function of an angle relative to the vehicle in the top view representation.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
18. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein a radius of the outer contour varies as a function of an angle relative to the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. For example, a human drawing the outer by changing a radius of the contour as a function of an angle relative to the vehicle in the top view representation.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The bolded limitations represent abstract ideas:
19. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the inner contour, the outer contour, or a combination thereof is determined based on sensing capabilities of at least a subset of the one or more sensors.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from one or more sensors, sensor data for an area surrounding a vehicle;
determining, based on the sensor data, features within a top view representation of the area surrounding the vehicle, wherein the top view representation comprises: (i) an outer contour that defines an outer limit of the top view representation and (ii) an inner contour positioned within the outer contour, the inner contour defining an inner limit of the top view representation; and
determining, based on the features within the top view representation, vehicle instructions for the vehicle.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper and, therefore, is an abstract idea. A human can observe an area around a vehicle and the human can determine features (objects) in a top view representation and draw from the top view representation (perspective) an inner contour and an outer contour around the vehicle. Further, the ”determining, based on the features within the top view representation, vehicle instructions for the vehicle”, is a mental process of the human observing the features and determining what the vehicle should do with respect to a feature without the vehicle actual performing the determination.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined 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 mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
20. A non-transitory computer-r