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 .
Summary
The Amendment filed on 24 March 2026 has been acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
Claims 10 – 17 are newly presented.
Currently, claims 1 – 17 are pending and considered as set forth.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection,
The Applicant first argues, “the steps of monitoring the detection region with the environment detection sensor system and processing corresponding sensor signals output by the environment detection sensor system cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Rather, monitoring any region with a sensor system requires physical use of a sensor system itself. Moreover, while the human mind may be capable of interpreting graphical or other visual interfaces that display processed or converted sensor data, the human mind cannot process sensor signals, let alone do so in such a manner as to detect an object in an adjusted monitoring region. The Office's guidance instructs that a claim that contains any limitation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is not directed to a mental process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses that the monitoring and detecting step certainly can be done by a human mind as getting sensor data and an input. Physical usage of sensor input data is a merely getting input from a device that is widely available. Given sensor data is available, utilizing data to doing all the functions of the independent claims are definitely possible in human mind. The analysis of human mind is that with given data, can a human make a judgement on the data. The claim limitations, given the sensor data is available to human can make a judgement, hence it falls into an abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues, “Moreover, regardless of whether claims 1-8 are viewed as reciting an exception under Prong One of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is respectfully submitted that clams 1-8 provide a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test. As set forth in the Office's guidance, an element or combination of elements which reflect a technical improvement provide that a claim is directed to a practical application. In this regard, claims 1-8 recite locally adjusting a region boundary of an established monitoring region, monitoring the detection region with the environment detection sensory system, and processing corresponding sensor signals output by the environment detection sensor system. As discussed in the present application, these features provide for minimizing false positive object detections within a monitoring region of an environment detection sensor system.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses that the claims monitor and process the data but it does not perform any practical application in the claim. It does not affect the driving system or controlling the vehicle in anyway. The features for minimizing false positive object detection… is intended purposes/use not what it does or how it physically transform any behavior of the vehicle. Therefore, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection,
The Examiner notes, said applicant’s claim amendment, necessitated the new grounds of rejection. Claims 1 – 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Kellner, however after a reevaluation of the references, in view of said applicant’s claim amendment, a rearrangement of the rejection occurred.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to a method that monitor an object detected region and based on deviation of value, adjust the monitoring region to monitor the object in the monitored region. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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:
A method for detecting an object in the environment of a vehicle by way of an environment detection sensor system arranged on the vehicle, the method comprising:
having the step of establishing a monitoring region in a detection region of the environment detection sensor system in order to monitor the environment of the vehicle for an object residing in the monitoring region by way of the environment detection sensor system;
locally determining a measurement deviation for at least one measurement value of the environment detection sensor system in the established monitoring region;
locally adjusting a region boundary of the established monitoring region in line with the locally determined measurement deviation in order to monitor the environment of the vehicle for the object residing in the adjusted monitoring region by way of the environment detection sensor system; and
detecting the object in the adjusted monitoring region by monitoring the detection region with the environment detection sensor system and processing corresponding sensor signals output by the environment detection sensor system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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”)
A method for detecting an object in the environment of a vehicle by way of an environment detection sensor system arranged on the vehicle, the method comprising:
having the step of establishing a monitoring region in a detection region of the environment detection sensor system in order to monitor the environment of the vehicle for an object residing in the monitoring region by way of the environment detection sensor system;
locally determining a measurement deviation for at least one measurement value of the environment detection sensor system in the established monitoring region;
locally adjusting a region boundary of the established monitoring region in line with the locally determined measurement deviation in order to monitor the environment of the vehicle for the object residing in the adjusted monitoring region by way of the environment detection sensor system; and
detecting the object in the adjusted monitoring region by monitoring the detection region with the environment detection sensor system and processing corresponding sensor signals output by the environment detection sensor system.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
There is no additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, as there is no additional element, there is no need to determine if additional element is more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Dependent claims 2 – 8 and 10 – 16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 8 and 10 – 16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 16 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 9 and 17 recite same or substantially similar limitations as claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 16. Therefore claims 9 and 17 are rejected under same rationales.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 13 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kellner (submitted by the Applicant in IDS)(US 2023/0094836 A1).
As per claim 1, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
a method for detecting an object in the environment of a vehicle by way of an environment detection sensor system arranged on the vehicle (See at least paragraph 2; it is of particular importance for a variety of driver assistance systems and driving functions, in particular for highly automated or autonomous driving, to detect objects which are located in the surroundings of the respective vehicle. Such objects can be in particular other road users.), the method comprising:
having the step of establishing a monitoring region in a detection region of the environment detection sensor system in order to monitor the environment of the vehicle for an object residing in the monitoring region by way of the environment detection sensor system (See at least abstract; Camera data and radar echoes are received from the surroundings. At least one radar echo is assigned to a delimiting frame of an object detected on the basis of a camera, the delimiting frame being generated using the camera data by comparing corresponding azimuth angles and specified distances of the radar echo and the object detected on the basis of a camera.);
locally determining a measurement deviation for at least one measurement value of the environment detection sensor system in the established monitoring region (See at least abstract; In the event of a successful assignment, a distance which is assumed on the basis of a camera is corrected according to the distance of the respective detected object in the surroundings, said distance being determined in a radar-based manner. The respective delimiting frame together with the corrected distance is then output as an object data set which indicates a successful object detection.);
locally adjusting a region boundary of the established monitoring region in line with the locally determined measurement deviation in order to monitor the environment of the vehicle for the object residing in the adjusted monitoring region by way of the environment detection sensor system (See at least paragraph 14 – 15; If multiple radar echoes were assigned to one delimiting frame, the assumed distance of this delimiting frame can be replaced, for example, by a mean value of the distances determined for the assigned radar echoes. A predefined or estimated measurement error or a measurement accuracy of the radar-based determined distances, an inaccuracy or uncertainty of the assumed distance, and/or the like can also be taken into consideration in the correction of the assumed distance, for example. The respective delimiting frame can be shifted in the mentioned 2D space or in the mentioned plane according to the radar-based determined distance or distance of the object thus detected from the motor vehicle. The delimiting frames having the respective corrected distance are then output, provided, or used further as an object data set, which indicates a successful object detection. The object data set can then serve or be used, for example, as the foundation for further calculations, for example, as the basis or input data for a Kalman filter, for driving functions or control processes of the motor vehicle, and/or the like.); and
detecting the object in the adjusted monitoring region by monitoring the detection region with the environment detection sensor system and processing corresponding sensor signals output by the environment detection sensor system (See at least paragraph 83; it is thus proposed here that bounding boxes having an orientation and size be determined directly in each individual measurement cycle based on the camera data and raw Doppler detections of a radar be assigned to these bounding boxes. Such an assignment is not trivial, for example, due to clutter echoes and multipath propagations of the radar radiation and a possibly high object density, for example, in an urban space or in a congestion situation. The proposed method first attempts to implement an association with an extended camera object via the combination of Doppler detections which have a consistent Doppler profile. The association can be assessed here on the basis of the Doppler profile and an orientation estimation resulting therefrom. Moreover, the scaling error λ in the camera-based determined distance of the respective bounding box can be corrected or checked for plausibility by the radar-based determined distance. As a result, a direct association of raw Doppler detections, thus corresponding raw radar data, with a camera-based recognized object and a correspondingly corrected object detection can be obtained. Not only surroundings objects located ahead or moving toward the motor vehicle 12 in the radial direction can be detected here, but rather, for example, also surroundings objects entering laterally, thus at least essentially perpendicularly to the travel direction 24 into the surroundings 16 or an acquisition range of the assistance system 14 can be recognized or extracted or detected particularly rapidly on the basis of a plausibility check on the basis of the Doppler profile. In the method, a grouping and association of radar detections with a surroundings object can advantageously be used for a particularly robust update of a tracking of surroundings objects over time (track update)).
As per claim 2, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein, in the step of locally determining the measurement deviation, the measurement deviation is locally determined for the measurement value on the basis of an angle measurement error of the environment detection sensor system (See at least abstract).
As per claim 3, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein, in the step of locally determining the measurement deviation, the measurement deviation is locally determined for the measurement value on the basis of a distance measurement error of the environment detection sensor system (See at least paragraph 14 and 20).
As per claim 4, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein, in the step of locally determining the measurement deviation, the measurement deviation is locally determined on the basis of predetermined technical data of the environment detection sensor system (See at least paragraph 13 – 14).
As per claim 5, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein, in the step of locally determining the measurement deviation, the measurement deviation is locally determined on the basis of an empirical test of the environment detection sensor system for detecting the object in the environment of the vehicle (See at least paragraph 27).
As per claim 6, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein, in the step of locally determining the measurement deviation, a measurement deviation for at least one measurement value of the environment detection sensor system is locally determined along the region boundary of the established monitoring region, and in that, in the step of locally adjusting the region boundary of the established monitoring region, the adjusted monitoring region comprises a polygon which is adjusted in line with the determined measurement deviation for the at least one measurement value (See at least paragraph 80 – 81 and 83).
As per claim 7, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein, in the step of locally adjusting the region boundary of the established monitoring region, the region boundary is locally extended on the basis of the locally determined measurement deviation(See at least paragraph 80 – 81 and 83).
As per claim 8, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
locally establishing a measurement error region for the at least one measurement value of the environment detection sensor system on the basis of the locally determined measurement deviation wherein, in the step of locally adjusting the region boundary of the established monitoring region, the region boundary is locally extended on the basis of the locally established measurement error region (See at least paragraph 50 and 83).
As per claim 11, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein the monitoring region corresponds to a portion of the detection region that is monitored by the environment detection sensor system prior to detection of the object (See at least abstract).
As per claim 12, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein the monitoring region is established independent of the position of the object (See at least paragraph 7 and 16).
As per claim 13, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein locally adjusting the region boundary of the established monitoring region includes expanding the established monitoring region (See at least abstract, and paragraph 5, 7 - 8 and 16).
As per claim 16, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein the locally determined measurement deviation is based on a measurement uncertainty of the entire environment detection sensor system (See at least paragraph 11 and 14).
Regarding claims 9 – 10 and 17:
Claims 9 – 10 and 17 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 – 8 above, respectively.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner in view of Joshi et al. (Hereinafter Joshi) (US 10891518 B1).
As per claim 14, Kellner teaches the limitations of:
wherein locally adjusting the region boundary of the established monitoring region (See at least paragraph 14 – 15) but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
changing a shape of the established monitoring region.
Joshi teaches the limitation of:
changing a shape of the established monitoring region (See at least abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify object detection of vehicle environment and adjusting monitoring region of object of Kellner, to include changing a shape of the established monitoring region as taught by Joshi in order to increase accuracy of the second labeling model when automatically generating bounding boxes (See abstract)
As per claim 15, the combination of Kellner and Joshi teaches the limitations of:
wherein locally adjusting the region boundary of the established monitoring region includes changing a shape of the established monitoring region (Kellner, see at least paragraph 14 – 15 and Joshi, see at least abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights