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 § 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, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 17-20, and 22-26 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The claims are directed to a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims employ abstract idea of including mathematical/algorithmic processing and mental-process-type evaluation/decision steps. The limitations “based at least on sensor data obtained using one or more sensors” and “performing one or more operations for a machine” appear to be field-of-use and result-oriented post-solution activity, rather than a recitation of how the claimed technique improves sensor technology, perception accuracy, computer operation, or machine control. The claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claim does not include additional step(s)/element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited step(s)/element(s), when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to more than the above-identified abstract idea. The additional elements or combination of elements “processor” in the claim taken individually or in combination is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea) itself because the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The use of generic computer components does not impose any meaningful limits on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. A claim without significantly additional limitations is not patent eligible.
Using the 101 subject matter eligibility test, the claims pass Step 1 since they are directed to a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Analyzing under Step 2A, i.e., part 1- Mayo Test, the claims are directed to abstract idea and therefore must be analyzed at Step 2B. Using Step 2B, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Dependent claim(s) 1-9 and 16-26 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
< Remainder of Page Left Intentionally Blank >
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 11 and 21-29 would be allowed upon overcoming the above noted rejection. Examiner recommends including the detail about the machine based operations being performed in order to implement the abstract idea into a real world application. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Xu et al. (US 2019/0266418) discloses the concept of determining confidences corresponding to each area of interest, however, does not teach comparing one or more first predictions of the predictions corresponding to one or more first regions of a bounding shape associated with the object to one or more second predictions of the predictions corresponding to one or more second regions of the bounding shape and finally based at least on the comparing to execute an assigning and performing step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amandeep Saini whose telephone number is (571)272-3382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8AM-4PM).
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.
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.
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights