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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 23, 2024. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on May 23, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for JP2023-089425 dated May 31, 2023 and JP2023-205369 dated December 5, 2023.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is written in claim-like format rather than narrative form. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward an apparatus, claim 7 is directed toward an apparatus, and claim 8 is directed toward a method. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 7, and 8 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-6 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1, 7, and 8 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes/organizing human activity/mathematical concepts. The language of independent claim 8 is used for illustration:
A control method for controlling a movable body using measurement results of a plurality of distance measurement devices, the control method comprising:
specifying, by one or more processors, one or more processing-object distance measurement devices from the plurality of distance measurement devices, each of the processing-object distance measurement devices being a distance measurement device that is used in estimating at least one of a position and an orientation of the movable body (a person may mentally select one or more processing-object distance measuring devices from the plurality. Examiner notes that the use of one or more processors amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer); and
executing, by one or more processors, the estimation processing using three-dimensional point cloud data that is obtained through measurement by the processing-object distance measurement devices (a person may observe 3D point cloud data and mentally perform estimating. Examiner notes that the use of one or more processors amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer).
As explained above, independent claim 8 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 1 and 7, which are of similar scope to claim 8, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are 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 indicated that additional elements such as 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”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes/certain methods of organizing human activity/mathematical concepts judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1, 7, and 8 recite the additional elements of one or more processors…, and one or more memories…. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a. one or more processors… found in independent claims 1 and 7-8. This limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer.
b. one or more memories… found in independent claims 1 and 7. This limitation amounts to merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1, 7, and 8 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 7, and 8 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-6 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-6, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-6 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-8 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that amending the claims to require sending of the control command (rather than just generating a control command) would result in overcoming the current rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. If such an amendment is not desirable to Applicant, Examiner encourages Applicant to request an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0141092 (hereinafter, “Chen”). Examiner notes that [0163] indicates that any combination of embodiments is anticipated by Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses A remote control device that generates a control command for remote control of a movable body, using measurement results of a plurality of distance measurement devices, and that sends the control command to the movable body, the remote control device comprising, one or more memories, and one or more processors in communication with the one or more memories (see at least Fig. 1, elements 356A and 356B, [0031], [0096], [0132], and [0136]; the systems may be locally or remotely controlled and may include any number of processors and memories to perform the disclosed vehicle controls of the movable vehicle body), configured to perform processes including:
specifying one or more processing-object distance measurement devices from the plurality of distance measurement devices, each of the processing-object distance measurement devices being a distance measurement device that is used in estimating at least one of a position and an orientation of the movable body (see at least [0022]- [0023] and [0035]-[0037]; multiple sensors may be used to determine the position and orientation of the vehicle, including distance measurements and 3D imaging. Sensors used may be specified based on the automation level requested for the vehicle); and
executing the estimating using three-dimensional point cloud data that is obtained through measurement by the processing-object distance measurement devices (see at least [0022]- [0023], [0033]-[0034], [0113]-[0115], [0121]-[0129], and [0143]-[0160]; point cloud data may be obtained via one or more sensors configured to generate 3D point cloud data and the processed data may be used in controlling the vehicle).
Each of claims 7 and 8 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Chen discloses wherein the processes further include increasing the number of the processing-object distance measurement devices, compared to when the required accuracy is a second level that is lower than the first level when a required accuracy of the remote control is a first level (see at least [0022]- [0023]; the number of sensors and/or amount of sensor data collected differs as the autonomous level of the control changes from more and less advanced levels with more sensors/amount of sensor data collected for a higher automation demand).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Chen discloses wherein the processes further include deciding the number of the processing-object distance measurement devices, depending on a traveling situation of the movable body (see at least [0022]-[0023]; the number of sensors and/or amount of sensor data collected differs as the autonomous level of the control changes from more and less advanced levels with more sensors/amount of sensor data collected for a higher automation demand).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20210025998 (hereinafter, “Huber”) as evidenced by Chen.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Chen fails to explicitly teach the limitations of clam 4. Huber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processes further include:
executing the estimating by performing matching between the three-dimensional point cloud data and a template point cloud (see at least [0045]; matching between the point cloud data from the lidar and previously obtained map data is performed); and
increasing the number of the processing-object distance measurement devices, compared to the number of the processing-object distance measurement devices in the last matching, when a coincidence degree of the matching in the estimation processing is a threshold or less (see at least [0045]; based on at least some data being insufficient for matching, new data is collected and added to the analysis).
Examiner notes that the collection of new supplemental data of the same sensor is considered equivalent and/or an obvious variant to adding data from a different sensor evidenced at least by Chen at [0022]-[0023] which equates the two as alternatives for the same purpose.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chen with the teachings of Huber, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to compensate for insufficient data; see at least Huber at [0007].
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Chen fails to explicitly teach the limitations of clam 4. Huber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processes further include:
repeatedly executing the estimating by performing matching between the three-dimensional point cloud data and a template point cloud (see at least [0045]; matching between the point cloud data from the lidar and previously obtained map data is performed, and the process is iterative as the vehicle progresses); and
increasing the number of the processing-object distance measurement devices, compared to the number of the processing-object distance measurement devices in the last matching, when a reliability degree of the matching in a preset number of times of the estimation processing is a threshold or less (see at least [0045]; based on at least some data being insufficient for matching, new data is collected and added to the analysis, and the process is iterative as the vehicle progresses).
Examiner notes that the collection of new supplemental data of the same sensor is considered equivalent and/or an obvious variant to adding data from a different sensor evidenced at least by Chen at [0022]-[0023] which equates the two as alternatives for the same purpose.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chen with the teachings of Huber, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to compensate for insufficient data; see at least Huber at [0007].
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. However, Chen fails to explicitly teach the limitations of clam 4. Huber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processes further include decreasing a movement velocity of the movable body, when the number of the processing-object distance measurement devices is increased (see at least [0044]-[0045]; when supplemental data is required, the speed of the vehicle decreases).
Examiner notes that the collection of new supplemental data of the same sensor is considered equivalent and/or an obvious variant to adding data from a different sensor evidenced at least by Chen at [0022]-[0023] which equates the two as alternatives for the same purpose.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chen with the teachings of Huber, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to compensate for insufficient data; see at least Huber at [0007].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0075326 which relates to adding supplementary point cloud data when the original point cloud data is insufficient; and
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0012808 which relates to determining pose and orientation of vehicles based on sensor fusion creating point cloud data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666