DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on March 26, 2024.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [00110] includes equation 1 with additional paragraph numbering, which does not follow the order of the paragraphs in the specification (e.g., language “[0046]” and “[0047]” recited in paragraph [00110] should be removed).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “determine a sum of distances between an N-th contour point and the line segments based on a minimum value among distances between the N-th contour point and the line segments, wherein the N-th contour point is among a first contour point to M-th contour point representing the object …” should read “determine a sum of distances between an N-th contour point and the line segments based on a minimum value among distances between the N-th contour point and the line segments, wherein the N-th contour point is among a first contour point to an M-th contour point representing the object …” in order to correct minor informalities.
Claim language “determine, based on a sum of distances between an M-th contour point and the line segments, the degree of mismatch” should read “determine, based on a sum of distances between [[an]]the M-th contour point and the line segments, the degree of mismatch” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “determine a minimum value among distances between an N-th contour point and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th contour points is among a first contour point to M-th contour point representing the object …” should read “determine a minimum value among distances between an N-th contour point and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th contour point is among a first contour point to an M-th contour point representing the object …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “determine a sum of distances associated with an N-th layer based on a sum of minimum values among distances between contour points included in the N-th layer and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th layer is among first to M-th layers included in the object box …” should read “determine a sum of distances associated with an N-th layer based on a sum of minimum values among distances between contour points included in the N-th layer and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th layer is among a first layer to an M-th layer included in the object box …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “determine a sum of distances associated with an N-th layer based on a sum of a set of minimum values, wherein each of the set of minimum values is a minimum value among distances between one of contour points included in the N-th layer and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th layer is among a first layer to M-th layer included in the object box …” should read “determine a sum of distances associated with an N-th layer based on a sum of a set of minimum values, wherein each of the set of minimum values is a minimum value among distances between one of contour points included in the N-th layer and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th layer is among a first layer to an M-th layer included in the object box …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: identify the object box as being a specified shape; and determine, based on the degree of mismatch, whether the object corresponds to the specified shape” in order to clarify the recited subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to assign, to the object, an identifier indicating that the object is a stationary object, based on a determination that the object is [[a]]the stationary object” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: determine, based on the degree of mismatch, a reliability value indicating whether the object is a stationary object; and determine whether the object is [[a]]the stationary based on a value obtained by multiplying the reliability value by a weight” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “identifying, based on sensing information of the sensor, an object box comprising a plurality of contour points representing an object” should read “identifying, based on sensing information of [[the]]a sensor, an object box comprising a plurality of contour points representing an object” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The method of claim 14, wherein the determining the degree of mismatch comprises:” should read “The method of claim 14, wherein [[the]] determining the degree of mismatch comprises:” in order to correct minor informalities.
Claim language “determining a sum of distances between an N-th contour point and the line segments based on a minimum value among distances between the N-th contour point and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th contour point is among a first contour point to M-th contour point representing the object …” should read “determining a sum of distances between an N-th contour point and the line segments based on a minimum value among distances between the N-th contour point and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th contour point is among a first contour point to an M-th contour point representing the object …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “determining, based on a sum of distances between an M-th contour point and the line segments, the degree of mismatch” should read “determining, based on a sum of distances between [[an]]the M-th contour point and the line segments, the degree of mismatch” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The method of claim 14, wherein the determining the degree of mismatch comprises:” should read “The method of claim 14, wherein [[the]] determining the degree of mismatch comprises:” in order to correct minor informalities.
Claim language “determining a minimum value among distances between an N-th contour point and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th contour point is among a first contour point to M-th contour point representing the object …” should read “determining a minimum value among distances between an N-th contour point and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th contour point is among a first contour point to an M-th contour point representing the object …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The method of claim 14, wherein the determining the degree of mismatch comprises:” should read “The method of claim 14, wherein [[the]] determining the degree of mismatch comprises:” in order to correct minor informalities.
Claim language “determining a sum of distances associated with an N-th layer based on a sum of a set of minimum values, wherein each of the set of minimum values is a minimum value among distances between one of contour points included in the N-th layer and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th layer is among a first layer to M-th layer included in the object box …” should read “determining a sum of distances associated with an N-th layer based on a sum of a set of minimum values, wherein each of the set of minimum values is a minimum value among distances between one of contour points included in the N-th layer and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th layer is among a first layer to an M-th layer included in the object box …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The method of claim 14, wherein the determining the degree of mismatch comprises:” should read “The method of claim 14, wherein [[the]] determining the degree of mismatch comprises:” in order to correct minor informalities.
Claim language “determining a sum of distances associated with an N-th layer based on a sum of a set of minimum values, wherein each of the set of minimum values is a minimum value among distances between one of contour points included in the N-th layer and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th layer is among a first layer to M-th layer included in the object box …” should read “determining a sum of distances associated with an N-th layer based on a sum of a set of minimum values, wherein each of the set of minimum values is a minimum value among distances between one of contour points included in the N-th layer and the line segments, wherein N is a natural number satisfying 1 ≦ N ≦ M and the N-th layer is among a first layer to an M-th layer included in the object box …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 14, wherein [[the]] determining the plurality of minimum values comprises determining a distance between one contour point of the plurality of contour points and one line segment of the line segments based on coordinates of the one contour point and coordinates of two points passing through the one line segment” in order to correct minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The method of claim 14, wherein [[the]] determining the degree of mismatch comprises determining the degree of mismatch based on a value obtained by dividing a sum of the plurality of minimum values by a number of contour points representing the object” in order to correct minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine/manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test :
the limitation “identify, based on sensing information of the sensor, an object box comprising a plurality of contour points representing an object” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes to manipulate data and obtain a result (i.e., an object box, see specification at [0049], [0072], [0099]-[0100]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation/observation/judgment to identify the contour/outline of an object.
the limitation “determine a plurality of minimum values, wherein each of the plurality of minimum values is a minimum value among distances between one of the plurality of contour points and line segments constituting a boundary of the object box” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain results (i.e., a plurality of minimum values; see specification at [0023], [0051], [0108]-[0116]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to calculate distances between points and line segments, and determine the minimum distances.
the limitation “determine a degree of mismatch between the object box and the plurality of contour points based on at least one of: the plurality of minimum values, or a number of the plurality of contour points” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes to compare data and obtain a result (i.e., a degree of mismatch; see specification at [0012], [0019]-[0022], [0024], [0050], [0078]-[0088], [0100], [0102]-[0107], [0121]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation/judgment/observation to compare data and determine a value of mismatch/discrepancy.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“An apparatus comprising: a sensor; and a processor” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a sensor) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), while also appending the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
“output, based on the degree of mismatch, a signal indicating whether the object is a stationary object” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data outputting) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), while generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., classifying objects as stationary), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
append generic computer components (i.e., a processor) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (i.e., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
recite extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated, data outputting) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a sensor), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claim 14 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea, Step 2A – Prong One) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or without providing significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 2-13 and 15-20), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Wu (US 20210293930 A1) discloses:
An apparatus (Fig. 2, item 200 – “LIDAR-based object detection system”; [0019]: an apparatus is used to determine L-shaped objects using point cloud data (see Abstract and [0001])) comprising:
a sensor (Fig. 2, item 202a-c – “LIDAR sensor”; [0019]: the LIDAR-based object detection system includes one or more sensors); and
a processor (Fig. 2, item 204 – “controller”; [0019]: the LIDAR-based object detection system includes a controller for performing target identification), wherein the processor is configured to:
identify, based on sensing information of the sensor, an object box comprising a plurality of contour points representing an object ([0020]: the controller determines a bounding box defining the space occupied by the object (see [0046])).
Noh (US 20210312633 A1) discloses:
“An apparatus for recognizing an object based on a lidar sensor and a method thereof can extract a valid contour point of an object from a point cloud generated by the lidar sensor and recognize a shape of the object based on a contour line composed of the extracted valid contour point of the object, such that it is possible to recognize the shape of an object located on a road with high accuracy, thereby improving the driving stability of an autonomous vehicle. The apparatus includes the lidar sensor that generates the point cloud around an autonomous vehicle, and a controller that extracts the valid contour point of the object from the point cloud and recognizes the shape of the object based on the contour line composed of the extracted valid contour point” (Abstract: shape of an object is identified based on extracting valid contour points from point cloud LIDAR data).
Noh (US 20220179076 A1) discloses:
“A method of analyzing the shape of an object using a LIDAR sensor includes determining the first to Mth shapes of first to Mth layers (where M is a positive integer of 2 or more) related to a target object using clustered LiDAR points and analyzing the determined first to M'h shapes according to a predetermined priority to determine the shape of the target object” (Abstract: shape of an object is analyzed for determining whether the object is dynamic or static (see [0089]) for tracking purposes (see [0003])).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“determine a plurality of minimum values, wherein each of the plurality of minimum values is a minimum value among distances between one of the plurality of contour points and line segments constituting a boundary of the object box;
determine a degree of mismatch between the object box and the plurality of contour points based on at least one of: the plurality of minimum values, or a number of the plurality of contour points; and
output, based on the degree of mismatch, a signal indicating whether the object is a stationary object”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that the prior art of record discloses determining bounding boxes in general during autonomous driving, as well as determining dynamic/stationary objects (e.g., based on shape), however, the prior art of record does not determine a stationary object based on the degree of mismatch between contour points and bounding (object) box as claimed).
Regarding claim 14.
Wu (US 20210293930 A1) discloses:
A method (Fig. 2, item 200 – “LIDAR-based object detection system”; [0019]: a method is used to determine L-shaped objects using point cloud data (see Abstract and [0001])) comprising:
identifying, based on sensing information of the sensor (Fig. 2, item 202a-c – “LIDAR sensor”; [0019]: the LIDAR-based object detection system includes one or more sensors), an object box comprising a plurality of contour points representing an object ([0020]: the controller determines a bounding box defining the space occupied by the object (see [0046])).
Noh (US 20210312633 A1) discloses:
“An apparatus for recognizing an object based on a lidar sensor and a method thereof can extract a valid contour point of an object from a point cloud generated by the lidar sensor and recognize a shape of the object based on a contour line composed of the extracted valid contour point of the object, such that it is possible to recognize the shape of an object located on a road with high accuracy, thereby improving the driving stability of an autonomous vehicle. The apparatus includes the lidar sensor that generates the point cloud around an autonomous vehicle, and a controller that extracts the valid contour point of the object from the point cloud and recognizes the shape of the object based on the contour line composed of the extracted valid contour point” (Abstract: shape of an object is identified based on extracting valid contour points from point cloud LIDAR data).
Noh (US 20220179076 A1) discloses:
“A method of analyzing the shape of an object using a LIDAR sensor includes determining the first to Mth shapes of first to Mth layers (where M is a positive integer of 2 or more) related to a target object using clustered LiDAR points and analyzing the determined first to M'h shapes according to a predetermined priority to determine the shape of the target object” (Abstract: shape of an object is analyzed for determining whether the object is dynamic or static (see [0089]) for tracking purposes (see [0003])).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest:
“determining a plurality of minimum values, wherein each of the plurality of minimum values is a minimum value among distances between one of the plurality of contour points and line segments constituting a boundary of the object box;
determining a degree of mismatch between the object box and the plurality of contour points based on at least one of: the plurality of minimum values, or a number of the plurality of contour points; and
outputting, based on the degree of mismatch, a signal indicating whether the object is a stationary object”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that the prior art of record discloses determining bounding boxes in general during autonomous driving, as well as determining dynamic/stationary objects (e.g., based on shape), however, the prior art of record does not determine a stationary object based on the degree of mismatch between contour points and bounding (object) box as claimed).
Regarding claims 2-13 and 15-20.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TRUKHANOVICH; Uladzislau Andreevich, US 20210197809 A1, METHOD OF AND SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING FUTURE EVENT IN SELF DRIVING CAR (SDC)
Reference discloses using bounding boxes to determine collision candidates during autonomous driving.
Hu F, Yang D, Li Y. Combined Edge- and Stixel-based Object Detection in 3D Point Cloud. Sensors. 2019; 19(20):4423. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19204423
Reference discloses object detecting by boundary area selection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights