DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 received on 05/08/2024 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-17 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
Claims 10, 12-13 and 16-17: autonomous/assisted driving system, ADS (generic placeholder) performing operations (function)
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “ADS”, it is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of computer or processing circuitry and equivalents thereof as supported by a portion of paragraph 0013 and FIG. 3 (element 310) of the specification reproduced below:
[0013] Also, embodiments may relate to a computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out an embodiment of the method proposed herein.
[0068] Fig. 6 schematically illustrates a block diagram of an apparatus 600 comprising one or more interfaces 610 for communication and a data processing circuit 620 configured to execute the method of any one of the preceding claims.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 7-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method.
Claims 9-17 are directed to an apparatus, i.e. a machine.
Therefore, claims 1-17 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for an autonomous/assisted driving system, ADS, for a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining a top view representation of labels of a traffic environment in Cartesian coordinates from sample data;
obtaining a transformation matrix for transforming Cartesian coordinates in an observation coordinate system of a perspective of an environmental sensor of the ADS; and
applying the transformation matrix to the top view representation of the labels to obtain a perspective representation of the traffic environment in the observation coordinate system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mathematical concept”, as the claim limitation of applying the transformation matrix cover mathematical calculations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, claims 1-17 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A method for an autonomous/assisted driving system, ADS, for a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining a top view representation of labels of a traffic environment in Cartesian coordinates from sample data;
obtaining a transformation matrix for transforming Cartesian coordinates in an observation coordinate system of a perspective of an environmental sensor of the ADS; and
applying the transformation matrix to the top view representation of the labels to obtain a perspective representation of the traffic environment in the observation coordinate system.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining a top view representation […]” and “obtaining a transformation matrix […]” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically data gathering.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to “applying the transformation matrix” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtaining a top view representation […]” and “obtaining a transformation matrix […]”, the examiner submits that these limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claims 2, 7, 11 and 16 recite additional limitations of obtaining labels, thus are directed insignificant extra-solution activity, similar to claim 1 shown above.
Dependent claims 3-4, 8, 12-13 and 17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
Dependent claims 5 and 14 recite “training the neural network using the perspective representation of the traffic environment”, thus applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, as supported by para. [0006] of the specification reproduced below:
[0006] In this way, the suitability of sample data for training the neural network may be achieved or at least improved. So, in practice, the proposed method, e.g., allows to use such sample data for training the neural network for the use with the environmental sensor having a different view on the traffic situation than the initial sample data (top view representation). Thus, more training data may be available for the training for the benefit of a better trained neural network.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-13 and 16-17 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory 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 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 14 recites the limitation "the neural network." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 15 are dependent on 6 and 15 and fail to cure the deficiencies thereof, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9-10, closest prior arts, Douillard (US 20200193606 A1) and YE (CN115273002A), taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole.
Douillard is cited in the IDS received on 05/08/2024.
A merged PE2E English translation and foreign copy of YE referenced by the Examiner is attached.
Douillard teaches receiving a 3D dataset (FIG. 1 102; para. [0034]: “At operation 102, the process can include receiving at least one three-dimensional LIDAR dataset”) and converting the 3D dataset into a different perspective (FIG. 1 112; para [0036]: “At operation 112, the process can include converting the projection shape into a multi-channel two-dimensional image.”; para. [0030]: “Conceptually, adapting the rendering perspective to the object can include viewing the three-dimensional data from a virtual perspective, such that the rendering perspective is not constrained by the original location of the LIDAR sensor, for example. In practice, the rendering perspective is selected to maximize a horizontal and/or vertical extent of the three-dimensional segmented data onto the rendering plane”), but fails to specifically teach applying the transformation matrix to the top view representation of the labels to obtain a perspective representation of the traffic environment in the observation coordinate system.
YE teaches converting 2D images into a BEV for a more accurate and dense 3D scene (Abstract: “The application relates to an image processing method, a device, a storage medium and a computer program product. The method comprises: obtaining the two-dimensional image collected by the first image collecting device; the first image collecting device is any image collecting device installed on the vehicle; extracting the feature of the two-dimensional image by the neural network model, and determining the feature corresponding to at least one scenic spot in the extracted feature; wherein the scene point is preset scene point set in preset scene point set at BEV visual angle, the preset scene point set is distributed in polar coordinate system taking bicycle as pole, and the plane of preset scene point set is parallel to the ground, neural network model is obtained by training the training data corresponding to the target task; according to at least one scene corresponding to the characteristic, executing the target task. The application can convert the 2 D image into uniform under BEV visual angle, accurate, dense 3 D scene expression, and used for executing the target”), but fails to specifically teach applying the transformation matrix to the top view representation of the labels to obtain a perspective representation of the traffic environment in the observation coordinate system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668