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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in Fig. 5 should be provided with descriptive text labels. See 37 C.F.R. 1.83 (a).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 indicates the radar unit is “configured to provide distance information to an object” that is behind the vehicle. As worded this indicates the “information” is to be provided by the radar to the object, which is clearly not the intent in context, but rather distance to an object is being referenced. Similar wording is present in claim 20 in the obtaining step.
Claim 13 lacks an article to preceding “reversing direction” at line 7.
Claim 21 recites “The method according to claim 20, wherein a computer-readable storage device having software that is stored thereon and the software is executed…“ is clearly grammatically incorrect and requires revision. It appears text to complete the “wherein” clause is missing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-13 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 20 recite(s):
obtaining distance information to the object from the radar unit;
determining, based on the distance information, the shortest longitudinal distance between a comer of the rear of the vehicle and the object along the reversing direction of the vehicle while approaching the object; and
modifying distance information, based on the shortest longitudinal distance, to compensate for the approaching angle.
Claim 12 recites corresponding functions, attributable to an “evaluation unit” (interpreted as a computer/processor, e.g. [0021], [0022], [0057]) and requires a “radar unit mounted on a rear of the vehicle” to provide the distance information.
Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 20 recites:
determining, based on the distance information, the shortest longitudinal distance between a comer of the rear of the vehicle and the object along the reversing direction of the vehicle while approaching the object; and
modifying distance information, based on the shortest longitudinal distance, to compensate for the approaching angle.
Claim 12 recites equivalent functions.
These encompass mental observations or evaluations, performable by a human in the mind or via pen and paper.
Thus, the claims recite mental processes, which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 12 and 20 require an additional element of obtaining distance information to the object from a radar unit.
Claim 12 requires a generic radar unit to provide distance information which is later obtained by an evaluation unit.
This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the evaluation. The step represents insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Concerning the “radar” specifically, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III).
Claim 12 also recites the additional element of an “evaluation unit” (e.g. computer or processor).
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, the evaluation unit generally applies the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mental process) without placing any limitation on how it operates. The claim invokes generic computer elements as a tool for performing the recited idea rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the step of obtaining distance information to the object via radar unit is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as shown from IDS-cited prior art, is well-understood, routine, and conventional (e.g. U.S. 6,268,803). Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the evaluation unit was found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 13 requires additional mental steps (determination(s)), which do not introduce any additional elements.
Claim 16 introduces an additional generic “further sensor” and that the evaluation unit receive a signal from this sensor. As above, this represents insignificant extra solution data gathering activity which is well understood, routine, and conventional (e.g. U.S. 6,268,803) and does not represent a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 17-18 do not add meaningful additional limitation, merely labeling the “device” of claim 1 (which comprises both the radar unit and evaluation unit) as for example a “vehicle electronic control unit” very broadly configured to control “a function of the vehicle other than reversing assistance”. There is no indication as to what this function is and no additional elements are introduced indicative of a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 19 represents a field of use limitation, indicating the vehicle includes a trailer and the radar is mounted on the rear of the trailer. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III). Further, as demonstrated in (e.g. U.S. 6,268,803), such is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Claim 21 adds additional generic computer elements to perform the method (computer-readable storage device and memory). As addressed above, these represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components and do not represent a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-21 EW rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 12 requires an evaluation unit function of “modifying the distance information to compensate for the approaching angle based on the shortest longitudinal distance”. Claim 20 requires the same, being a step in the method.
Paragraph [0007] defines the claimed radar-provided “distance information”: “The term “distance information” shall be understood broadly in that it should encompass all information sufficient for the determination of the closest distance R and the angle α without the need of directly providing these quantities. For example, the radar unit may provide coordinates of the object or multiple distances to different reflection points on the object or any other quantities that enable the calculation of the approaching angle α.”
The claimed “modifying” of distance information is not found to be supported by an enabling disclosure. The term is used only at [0006] and [0020] of the substitute specification where the claimed invention of claims 12 and 20 respectively are summarized. The term is not used in the detailed description section.
Paragraph [0039] of the detailed description states: “the evaluation unit 110 may determine the shortest longitudinal distance C to thus enable a compensation of a non-rectangular approaching angle α”. This is not found to indicate a modification of the radar- provided “distance information” (e.g. coordinates or distances to reflection points) as claimed, nor does it teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make any such modification “based on the shortest longitudinal distance”. Further, even if “modifying” as used in the claims were interpreted as equivalent to “compensating”, the specification likewise provides no explanation of compensating “a non-rectangular approaching angle α” using the determined shortest longitudinal distance. With reference to Figure 6, this step (S230) is described only at [0055] as: “providing S230 distance information which is compensated by the approaching angle α, based on the shortest longitudinal distance C.” As above, no explanation or teaching is provided as to what this compensation (modification?) is, or how the determined shortest longitudinal distance is used as basis for such. In what way is the distance information “modified” or compensated? How is this achieved? The specification provides no working examples or direction so as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention by modifying the distance information obtained from the radar without undue experimentation. Claims 13-19 and 21 depend on claim 1 or 20 and likewise fail to comply with the enablement requirement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carter discloses coordinate transformation for sensor data encompassing a field of view behind a trailer to dynamically determine relative orientations of the trailer and the tractor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646