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 16–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. All claims fall within a statutory category under § 101.
Claims 16–30 are drawn to an apparatus (claims 16–28), a method (claim 29), and a computer-readable medium (claim 30), and thus fall within statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claims recite an abstract idea in the form of mathematical concepts / mathematical calculations (an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas).
In particular, claim 16 (and similarly claims 29–30) recites operations that amount to mathematical processing and comparison of data, including, but not limited to: encoding inputs into feature representations (feature vectors/maps); calculating “a similarity” between feature vectors; calculating “a first point correlation … based on the similarities”; checking threshold/top-k conditions (“larger than a … threshold” and “among the largest k values”); and calculating “an estimated transformation between the first coordinate system and the second coordinate system based on the pairs of extracted coordinates.”
These limitations collectively recite mathematical relationships and calculations (e.g., similarity metrics, correlation computations, ranking/top-k selection, thresholding, and transformation estimation), which fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
To distinguish ineligible claims that merely recite a judicial exception from eligible claims that require an implementation of judicial exception, the Supreme Court uses a two-step framework: Step One (Step 2A), determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts; and Step Two (Step 2B), if so, ask “what else is there in the claims?’ to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) 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.
While the guidelines 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 guidelines 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;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; 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.
The additional limitations in the claims do not integrate the recited mathematical concepts into a practical application.
Although the claims refer to “3D point cloud,” “grids/cells,” “coordinate systems,” and “encoder/matching layers,” the claims do not recite any specific technological improvement or specific implementation that meaningfully limits the judicial exception to a particular practical application. Rather, the claims broadly recite generic processing stages encoding, matching, correlation, thresholding, transformation estimation) that amount to applying mathematical calculations to data representations, without specifying how the claimed processing improves a computer or other technology, or how it achieves a particular technical effect beyond the result of “estimating transformation.”
Further, the claims are drafted at a high level of generality and do not recite: a specific similarity/correlation formulation, a specific transformation estimation technique, a particular sensor/robotics system control action, or a concrete downstream application that uses the estimated transformation to control a physical system in a particular manner.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application and remains directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. 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.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional elements beyond the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more.
The claims recite generic computing components (“one or more processors,” “memory,” “instructions”) and high-level functional processing blocks (“encoder layer,” “matching descriptor layer,” “optimal matching layer,” “neural fusion layer”) that merely implement the abstract idea on a computer as a tool. The claims do not recite additional features that are indicative of an inventive concept, such as a particular improvement to computer functionality or a nonconventional technical arrangement that goes beyond applying the abstract idea using well-understood computing techniques.
Therefore, claims 16–30 lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Regarding claims 16, 22, 27, 29 and 30, the term optionally renders required scope unclear.
Claim 16 recites, for example: “adapting … each of the first input feature vectors based on the first input feature vectors, optionally with their first feature center points, and the second input feature vectors, optionally with their second feature center points …”
Claim 22 includes multiple nested clauses such as: “based on the first feature vector and optionally the first feature center point … adapted based on … and based on the third feature vector and optionally the third feature center point …”
The term “optionally” makes it unclear whether the recited feature center points are required inputs to the adapting operation, and therefore fails to delineate the metes and bounds of the claim. A claim must clearly define what is included in the required method/apparatus steps; presenting core inputs as optional creates multiple potential scopes without clear boundaries.
The dependent claims do not resolve this issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art is found for the claims. The independent claims recite in part: encoding, by the first encoder layer, the first 3D point cloud of the first modality into a first encoded map of the first modality, wherein the first encoded map of the first modality comprises, for each of the first cells of the first grid, a respective first feature center point and a respective first feature vector, and the coordinates of the first feature center points are indicated in the first coordinate system; inputting a first encoded input map into a first matching descriptor layer of a first hierarchical layer, wherein the first encoded input map is based on the first encoded map of the first modality and comprises, for each of the first cells, a respective first joint feature center point and a respective first input feature vector, wherein the coordinates of the first joint feature center points are indicated in the first coordinate system; inputting a second 3D point cloud of the first modality and a second grid comprising one or more second cells into a second encoder layer, wherein the coordinates of points of the second 3D point cloud are indicated in a second coordinate system; encoding, by the second encoder layer, the second 3D point cloud of the first modality into a second encoded map of the first modality, wherein the second encoded map of the first modality comprises, for each of the second cells of the second grid, a respective second feature center point and a respective second feature vector, and the coordinates of the second feature center points are indicated in the second coordinate system; inputting a second encoded input map into the first matching descriptor layer, wherein the second encoded input map is based on the second encoded map of the first modality and comprises, for each of the second cells, a respective second joint feature center point and a respective second input feature vector, wherein the coordinates of the second joint feature center points are indicated in the second coordinate system; adapting, by the first matching descriptor layer, each of the first input feature vectors based on the first input feature vectors, optionally with their first feature center points, and the second input feature vectors, optionally with their second feature center points, to obtain a first joint map, wherein the first joint map comprises, for each of the first joint feature center points, a respective first joint feature vector; adapting, by the first matching descriptor layer, each of the second input feature vectors based on the first input feature vectors, optionally with their first feature center points, and the second input feature vectors, optionally with their second feature center points, to obtain a second joint map, wherein the second joint map comprises, for each of the second joint feature center points, a respective second joint feature vector; calculating, by a first optimal matching layer, for each of the first cells and each of the second cells, a similarity between the first joint feature vector of the respective first cell and the second joint feature vector of the respective second cell; calculating, by the first optimal matching layer, for each of the first cells and each of the second cells, a first point correlation between the respective first cell and the respective second cell based on the similarities between the first joint feature vector of the respective first cell and the second joint feature vectors of the second cells and based on the similarities between the second joint feature vector of the respective second cell and the first joint feature vectors of the first cells; checking, for each of the first cells and each of the second cells, whether at least one of one or more first correlation conditions for the respective first cell and the respective second cell is fulfilled, wherein the one or more first correlation conditions comprise: the first point correlation between the respective first cell and the respective second cell is larger than a first correlation threshold of the first hierarchical layer; or the first point correlation between the respective first cell and the respective second cell is among the largest k values of the first point correlations, and k is a fixed value; extracting, for each of the first cells and each of the second cells, the coordinates of the first joint feature center point of the respective first cell in the first coordinate system and the coordinates of the second joint feature center point of the respective second cell in the second coordinate system to obtain a respective pair of extracted coordinates of the first hierarchical layer in response to checking that the at least one of the one or more first correlation conditions for the respective first cell and the respective second cell is fulfilled; calculating an estimated transformation between the first coordinate system and the second coordinate system based on the pairs of extracted coordinates of the first hierarchical layer.
The closest prior art is Lei (20220237446) and Sarlin (20210150252).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676