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 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) is/are:
a system for performing simulation operations in claim 13
a system for performing digital twin operations in claim 13
a system for performing light transport simulation in claim 13
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets in claim 13
a system for performing deep learning operations in claim 13
a system for performing remote operations in claim 13
a system for performing real-time streaming in claim 13
a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content in claim 13
a system for performing conversational AI operations in claim 13
a system implementing one or more language models in claim 13
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs) in claim 13
a system implementing one or more visual language models (VLMs) in claim 13
a system for generating synthetic data in claim 13
a system for generating synthetic data using AI in claim 13
a system for performing simulation operations in claim 20
a system for performing digital twin operations in claim 20
a system for performing light transport simulation in claim 20
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets in claim 20
a system for performing deep learning operations in claim 20
a system for performing remote operations in claim 20
a system for performing real-time streaming in claim 20
a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content in claim 20
a system for performing conversational AI operations in claim 20
a system implementing one or more language models in claim 20
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs) in claim 20
a system implementing one or more visual language models (VLMs) in claim 20
a system for generating synthetic data in claim 20
a system for generating synthetic data using AI in claim 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13 and 20 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.
Claim limitation:
“simulation operations”,
“digital twin”,
“light transport”,
“collaborative content creation for 3D assets”,
“conversational AI”,
“large language models”,
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is recited in the Specification beyond a mere recitation of the intended function as claimed above. In some cases, such as for “language models”, these functions do not seem to be present at all within the Specification.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) processing of sensor data to determine an angle bias error and correct such an error in the data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; and the data gathering steps required to supply data for processing do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Claim 1 recites “obtaining sensor data using a sensor associated with an ego machine”. This is considered insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Additional processing steps are not claimed as being carried out by any particular structure. Instead, the Specification seems to recite computer processing at a high level of generality which is insufficient to establish significantly more than the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-12 further limit the types of data gathered as well as additional processing steps of determination, identifying, and correcting but do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites several implementations of the claimed abstract idea, however these amount to a so-called “apply it” limitation that merely implements the abstract idea in various technological environments.
Claim 14 is an apparatus claim which recites “one or more processors” for carrying out calculations. The Specification seems to recite computer processing only at a high level of generality which is insufficient to establish significantly more than the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Claim 14 also recites generating data corresponding to a RADAR sensor which is considered insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering, and further correcting an angle detected by the RADAR sensor which amounts to additional data processing steps. That is, the additional element of a RADAR sensor is not considered sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as it is claimed only tangentially as a source of data.
Claim 15 further limits the types of data gathered as well as additional processing steps but does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites several implementations of the claimed abstract idea, however these amount to a so-called “apply it” limitation that merely implements the abstract idea in various technological environments.
Claim 17 is an apparatus claim which recites “one or more processors” for carrying out calculations. The Specification seems to recite computer processors only at a high level of generality which is insufficient to establish significantly more than the judicial exception of an abstract idea. The claim further discloses “a sensor” but is not considered sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as it is claimed only tangentially as a source of data, or as insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 19 further limits the types of data gathered as well as additional processing steps but does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites several implementations of the claimed abstract idea, however these amount to a so-called “apply it” limitation that merely implements the abstract idea in various technological environments.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US 2023/0082823 file Nov. 14, 2022).
Claim 1: Sato discloses A method comprising:
obtaining sensor data generated using a sensor associated with an ego-machine (para 0039-0041)
generating a representation of angle errors determined across a plurality of angles of the sensor based at least on a representation of the sensor data (para 0057, 0061, 0062, 0067-0071, 0073, 0074)
generating a representation of bias error associated with at least one angle of the plurality of angles of the sensor based at least on a distribution of angle errors, from the representation of angle errors, associated with the at least one angle of the plurality of angles of the sensor (para 0074-0087, 0093, 0096, fig 12-16); and
performing one or more correction operations on one or more subsequent angles, identified in association with subsequent sensor data generated using the sensor, based at least on the representation of bias error associated with the at least one angle (para 0092, 0093, 0098, 0113, 0114)
Claim 2: Sato discloses the sensor data comprises at least one of angle data, distance data, velocity data, Doppler effect data, or Doppler velocity data (para 0045, 0057, 0061, 0062, 0067-0071, 0073, 0074)
Claim 4: Sato discloses determining angle errors across the plurality of angles of the sensor based at least on one or more stationary points (para 0045, 0057, 0061, 0062, 0067-0071, 0073, 0074)
Claim 5: Sato discloses identifying, using the sensor data, one or more stationary points that correspond with one or more objects that are stationary; and determining angle errors across the plurality of angles of the sensor based at least on the stationary points (para 0045, 0057, 0061, 0062, 0067-0071, 0073, 0074)
Claim 6: Sato discloses determining angle errors across the plurality of angles of the sensor based at least on performing numerical minimization (para 0093, 0094, 0096, 0099-0114 disclosing the use of minimizing average and median values for angle error determination)
Claim 7: Sato discloses an angle error for the representation of angle errors comprises performing numerical minimization in accordance with sensor data associated with at least three data points detected using the sensor (para 0093, 0094, 0096, 0099-0114 disclosing the use of minimizing average and median values for angle error determination, fig 12-16)
Claim 8: Sato discloses generating the distribution of angle errors associated with the at least one angle of the plurality of angles of the sensor; and identifying a mean of the angle errors associated with the at least one angle based at least on the distribution of angle errors (para 0093, 0094, 0096, 0099-0114 disclosing the use of minimizing average and median values for angle error determination, fig 12-16)
Claim 9: Sato discloses the representation of bias error is generated using the mean of the angle errors associated with the at least one angle based at least on the distribution of angle errors (para 0093, 0094, 0096, 0099-0114 disclosing the use of minimizing average and median values for angle error determination, fig 12-16)
Claim 10: Sato discloses the representation of bias error includes an angle bias error for each angle of the plurality of angles of the sensor (para 0093, 0094, 0096, 0099-0114 disclosing the use of minimizing average and median values for angle error determination, fig 12-16
Claim 11: Sato discloses the representation of bias error includes an angle bias error for angles of the plurality of angles of the sensor, and wherein each angle bias error indicates a mean angle bias error for a corresponding angle and an uncertainty range associated with the mean angle bias error for the corresponding angle (para 0093, 0094, 0096, 0099-0114 disclosing the use of minimizing average and median values for angle error determination, fig 12-16
Claim 12: Sato discloses obtaining the subsequent sensor data generated using the sensor; identifying the one or more subsequent angles associated with the subsequent sensor data; and adjusting at least one angle of the one or more subsequent angles based at least on the representation of bias error associated with the at least one angle to offset for angle bias error (para 0092, 0093, 0098, 0113, 0114)
Claim 13: Sato discloses a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (para 0031-0033)
Claim 14: Sato discloses One or more processors comprising processing circuitry to:
generate a representation of bias errors corresponding with angles detected within a field of view of a RADAR sensor associated with an ego-machine, the representation of bias errors generated based at least on distributions of angle errors associated with the angles of the RADAR sensor (para 0074-0087, 0093, 0096, fig 12-16); and
perform one or more operations to correct an angle detected using the RADAR sensor based at least on the representation of bias errors (para 0092, 0093, 0098, 0113, 0114)
Claim 15: Sato discloses the representation of bias errors includes an angle bias error for a corresponding angle indicating a mean angle bias error for the corresponding angle and an uncertainty range associated with the mean angle bias error for the corresponding angle (para 0074-0087, 0093, 0096, fig 12-16); and
Claim 16: Sato discloses a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (para 0031-0033)
Claim 17: Sato discloses A system comprising one or more processors to:
generate a representation of angle errors determined in association with angles of a sensor associated with an ego-machine based at least on sensor data detected using the sensor (para 0057, 0061, 0062, 0067-0071, 0073, 0074)
generate a representation of bias errors associated the angles of the sensor based at least on distributions of angle errors, from the representation of angle errors, associated with the angles of the sensor (para 0074-0087, 0093, 0096, fig 12-16); and
perform one or more operations to correct an angle detected by the sensor based at least on the representation of bias errors (para 0092, 0093, 0098, 0113, 0114)
Claim 18: Sato discloses angle errors of the representation of angle errors are determined based at least on performing numerical minimization using at least a portion of the sensor data detected using the sensor (para 0093, 0094, 0096, 0099-0114 disclosing the use of minimizing average and median values for angle error determination)
Claim 19: Sato discloses the one or more processors are further to determine angle errors of the representation of angle errors across the angles of the sensor based at least on one or more stationary points (para 0045, 0057, 0061, 0062, 0067-0071, 0073, 0074)
Claim 20: Sato discloses a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (para 0031-0033)
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2023/0082823 file Nov. 14, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alferdaous (US 2022/0350018).
Claim 3: Sato does not specifically disclose the sensor data is received in the form of a point cloud including a collection of points generated based at least on data detected using the sensor.
In a similar field of endeavor, Alferdaous discloses a radar sensor for an autonomous vehicle in which on-board calibration may be carried out which corrects for sensor angle offset (para 0016) wherein the sensor data is received in the form of a point cloud including a collection of points generated based at least on data detected using the senso (para 0016).
It would have been obvious to odify the invention of Sato such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Alferdaous, as the use of point-cloud radar data inherently provides higher resolution target detection allowing improved sensor accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M BYTHROW whose telephone number is (571)270-1468. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 830am-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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648