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 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.
Claim 1-10 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. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the area of a first segment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a determination unit configured to determine, upon determining that there is a second segment detected by the segment detection unit within the area of a first segment detected by the segment detection unit, that the second segment is false data that is erroneously generated.” The compound use of “determine/determining” is not clear. Is the presence of the second segment the reason for the false data flag? Why does the presence of the second segment cause the false data flag? Claims 9, 10 recite a similar limitation and are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the reflected lights". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 and 6 recites “based on the segment other than the segment determined to be the second segment.” Not clear which segment is used in the determining.
Claim 4 recites “a blind spot of the measurement device.” Claim 1 to which claim 4 depends recites “a blind spot of the measuring device.” Not clear is this is the same blind spot or a different one.
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.
Claim 1, 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites: "An information processing device comprising: a segment detection unit configured to detect a segment, which represents an object, from measurement data outputted by a measurement device;
an area setting unit configured to set an area to be a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of the object; and
a determination unit configured to determine, upon determining that there is a second segment detected by the segment detection unit within the area of a first segment detected by the segment detection unit, that the second segment is false data that is erroneously generated."
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are "additional elements".
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101:
Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of "configured to determine, upon determining that there is a second segment detected by the segment detection unit within the area of a first segment detected by the segment detection unit, that the second segment is false data that is erroneously generated" are treated as belonging to combination of mathematical and mental process groupings. The mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a step that “upon determining that there is a second segment detected by the segment detection unit within the area of a first segment detected by the segment detection unit, that the second segment is false data that is erroneously generated, encompasses a user manually determining false data that is erroneously generated due to second segment (second object) presence in area of first segment (object).
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 9.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: An information processing device comprising: a segment detection unit configured to detect a segment, which represents an object, from measurement data outputted by a measurement device; an area setting unit configured to set an area to be a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of the object.
In Claim 9: A control method executed by a computer, the control method comprising: detecting a segment, which represents an object, from measurement data outputted by a measurement device; setting an area to be a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of the object.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as an information processing device comprising: a segment detection unit and a control method executed by a computer are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that generically recite acquiring measurement data (Claim 1) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are "performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application".
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuya (US 20190293793) in view of Levi et al (US 20230298358).
In regards to claim 1, Okuya discloses an information processing device comprising:
a segment detection unit configured to detect a segment, which represents an object, from measurement data outputted by a measurement device (Okuya Fig. 3 at least, object detected by ref. 13, measurement data indicated peaks in graph, Fig. 4 ref. S120);
Okuya does not expressly disclose: an area setting unit configured to set an area to be a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of the object;
Levi teaches setting an area which is determined to be in a blind spot/blocked from sensor view caused by the presence of an object (seen at least in Fig. 2A ref. 900A causing shadow area ref. 902A which is blocked from sensor view).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Okuya with Levi by providing an area setting unit configured to set an area to be a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of the object in order to monitor regions having obstacles to a moving vehicle.
Okuya as combined further discloses:
a determination unit configured to determine (Okuya Fig. 1 ref. 11 controller), upon determining that there is a second segment detected by the segment detection unit within the area of a first segment detected by the segment detection unit, that the second segment is false data that is erroneously generated (Okuyua at least [0050] discloses region in which a second segment detected “The object region exists in such a manner as to hide the configuration point P when the configuration point P is viewed from the host vehicle”, [0054] discloses determine second segment is false/error “If the focus point P (V, H) is a false image point obtained as a ranging point representing an object at a different position”).
IN regards to claim 2, Okuya as combined discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the measurement device emits lights in directions and receives the reflected lights (Okuya [0033] discloses laser radar, receiving the reflected light) to generate, as the measurement data, point cloud data indicating positions of measured points with respect to respective directions of emitting the lights (Okuya discloses objects made up of individual points [0040], [0041]), and wherein the segment detection unit is configured to detect, as the segment, a cluster of neighboring measured points (Okuya Fig. 4 ref. S120 clustering [0041] “Clustering assigns an object I and a configuration point P to each piece of the ranging point data”).
In regards to claim 3, Okuya as combined discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an object information output unit configured to output information regarding a number of the object (Okuya), based on the segment other than the segment determined to be the second segment (Okuya [0042] discloses info with regards to the number of an object, “The object number is assigned consecutively from I=1 to I=N. The configuration point P is a serial number sequentially given to the ranging points configuring each object I”, the numbers used in indent objects).
In regards to claim 4, Okuya as combined discloses the information processing device according to claim 1 wherein the area setting unit is configured to set, as the area, an area on a horizontal plane which is a blind spot of the measurement device due to the presence of the object (Okuya as combined, horizontal plane seen in Fig. 2A of Levi for ref. 902A).
In regards to claim 5, Okuya as combined disclose the information processing device according to claim 1 wherein the area setting unit is configured to set the area based on size information of the object corresponding to the first segment (Okuya discloses area of object made up of points clustered [0042]).
In regards to claim 6, Okuya as combined discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an object tracking unit configured to track the object detected through the measurement data obtained in time series, based on the segment other than the segment determined to be the second segment (Okuya [0044]).
In regards to claim 7, Okuya as combined discloses the information processing device according to claim 1 wherein the segment detection unit is configured to detect a segment representing a vehicle as the segment representing the object (Okuya as seen at least in Fig. 6 detecting vehicle, reference point P).
In regards to claim 8, Okuya as combined discloses the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the area setting unit is configured to set, as the area, an area which is a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of, among the vehicle, a vehicle determined to be a large vehicle (Okuya as suggested in Figs. 9, 10).
In regards to claim 9, Okuya discloses a control method executed by a computer (Okuya abstract, Figs. 4, 5), the control method comprising: detecting a segment, which represents an object, from measurement data outputted by a measurement device (Okuya Fig. 2, Fig. 3 at least, object detected by ref. 13, measurement data indicated peaks in graph, Fig. 4 ref. S120);
Okuya does not expressly disclose: setting an area to be a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of the object;
Levi teaches setting an area which is determined to be in a blind spot/blocked from sensor view caused by the presence of an object (seen at least in Fig. 2A ref. 900A causing shadow area ref. 902A which is blocked from sensor view).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Okuya with Levi by providing the means for setting an area to be a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of the object in order to monitor regions having obstacles to a moving vehicle.
Okuya as combined further discloses:
and determining, upon determining that there is a second segment detected within the area of a first segment detected, that the second segment is false data that is erroneously generated (Okuyua Fig. 4 at least step ref. S130 false image determination process, detailed in claim 1 rejection).
In regards to claim 10, Okuya discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to: detect a segment, which represents an object, from measurement data outputted by a measurement device (Okuya Fig. 2, Fig. 3 at least, object detected by ref. 13, measurement data indicated peaks in graph, Fig. 4 ref. S120);
Okuya does not expressly disclose: set an area to be a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of the object;
Levi teaches setting an area which is determined to be in a blind spot/blocked from sensor view caused by the presence of an object (seen at least in Fig. 2A ref. 900A causing shadow area ref. 902A which is blocked from sensor view).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Okuya with Levi by providing the means to set an area to be a blind spot of the measurement device due to a presence of the object in order to monitor regions having obstacles to a moving vehicle.
Okuya as combined further discloses:
and determine, upon determining that there is a second segment detected within the area of a first segment detected, that the second segment is false data that is erroneously generated (Okuyua Fig. 4 at least step ref. S130 false image determination process, detailed in claim 1 rejection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references disclose devices for scanning regions and indicating blocked or blind views of the sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights