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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 21, 2024. Claims 1-16 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for KR10-2024-0026685 dated February 23, 2024.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a method, and claim 9 is directed toward an apparatus. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 and 9 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A vehicle control method comprising:
measuring, by a measuring device, coordinates of a first entrance point that is an end point of a first entrance line in a first parking slot (a person may mentally determine a relative coordinate position for an end point of a line in a parking lot. Examiner notes that a level of precision not capable of being achieved by a human mind is not claimed. The measurement device is software, based on the original disclosure, and amounts to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer);
generating, by a generating device, a first entrance line measurement length based on the measured coordinates of the first entrance point (a person may mentally determine a line measurement length based on past experience and extending from the first entrance point. Examiner notes that a level of precision not capable of being achieved by a human mind is not claimed. The generating device is software, based on the original disclosure, and amounts to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer);
generating, by the generating device, a first entrance line tracking length by tracking a length of the first entrance line based on the first entrance line measurement length (a person may observe and track an actual line length of the parking line. Examiner notes that a level of precision not capable of being achieved by a human mind is not claimed. The generating device is software, based on the original disclosure, and amounts to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer); and
calibrating, by a calibrating device, the coordinates of the first entrance point based on a first error that is a difference between the first entrance line tracking length and the first entrance line measurement length (a person may mentally determine a difference between the expected and tracked length of the parking line and may mentally update the length based on the difference. Examiner notes that a level of precision not capable of being achieved by a human mind is not claimed. The calibrating device is software, based on the original disclosure, and amounts to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer).
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 9, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 such as 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”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1 and 9 recite the additional elements of a measuring device…, a generating device…, a calibrating device…, a memory…, and a processor…. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically, all of these limitations amount to merely implementing the abstract ideas using a generic computer.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1 and 9 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-8 and 10-16 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-16 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that claims 8 and 16 falls under the “apply it” rationale under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claims merely require an input and output into and out of a known software algorithm.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0227785 (hereinafter, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses A vehicle control method comprising:
measuring, by a measuring device, coordinates of a first entrance point that is an end point of a first entrance line in a first parking slot (see at least [0005], [0037], and [0054]; coordinates of, for example, the entrance left corner (i.e., a first entrance point) may be determined);
generating, by a generating device, a first entrance line measurement length based on the measured coordinates of the first entrance point (see at least []; );
generating, by the generating device, a first entrance line tracking length by tracking a length of the first entrance line based on the first entrance line measurement length (see at least [0054]; the entrance length is determined between the measured coordinate pair (i.e., first entrance line measurement length)); and
calibrating, by a calibrating device, the coordinates of the first entrance point based on a first error that is a difference between the first entrance line tracking length and the first entrance line measurement length (see at least Fig. 15 and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated).
Claim 9 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wang discloses wherein generating the first entrance line tracking length includes:
generating, by the generating device, the first entrance line tracking length by updating a second entrance line tracking length generated in a previous frame when a difference between a center point of the first entrance line and a longitudinal position of a side camera of a vehicle is less than a first threshold, and when a difference between the first entrance line measurement length and an entrance line reference length is less than a second threshold (see at least Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Fig. 15, [0047]-[0048], [0051], and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated as the vehicle nears the next slot. Examiner notes the confidence threshold for the corners and edges equates claimed thresholds for line measurement length and entrance line reference length).
Claim 10 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Wang discloses wherein generating the first entrance line tracking length includes:
generating, by the generating device, the first entrance line tracking length by updating the second entrance line tracking length based on the second entrance line tracking length generated in the previous frame and the first entrance line measurement length generated in a current frame (see at least Fig. 15 and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated).
Claim 11 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Wang discloses wherein generating the first entrance line tracking length includes:
generating, by the generating device, the first entrance line tracking length by predicting the first entrance line tracking length based on the second entrance line tracking length and the first entrance line measurement length using an arbitrary filter (see at least Fig. 15, [0074], and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated, and filters may be used for line tracking).
Claim 12 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Wang discloses wherein the second entrance line tracking length is the entrance line reference length when tracking for the length of the first entrance line is first performed in the previous frame (see at least Fig. 15, [0074], and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated, and filters may be used for line tracking. Examiner notes that the first entrance line is the one first sensed and tracked before the second).
Claim 13 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wang discloses wherein calibrating the coordinates of the first entrance point includes:
calibrating, by the calibrating device, the coordinates of the first entrance point based on the first error and an angle between a vehicle and a parking line adjacent to the first entrance line in the first parking slot when the first error is greater than a third threshold (see at least [0045], [0074], and [0101]; the FOV of the vehicle camera is used in determining how to filter the data to determine the positioning of the edges and corners (i.e., lines and points) of the parking slots).
Claim 14 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wang discloses further comprising:
measuring, by the measuring device, coordinates of a second entrance point of a second parking slot (see at least Fig. 15 and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated);
generating, by the generating device, a second entrance line measurement length based on the coordinates of the second entrance point (see at least Fig. 15, [0076]-[0078], and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated);
generating, by the generating device, a second error that is a difference between the first entrance line tracking length and the second entrance line measurement length (see at least Fig. 15, [0076]-[0078], and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated);
measuring, by the measuring device, coordinates of a third entrance point of a third parking slot (see at least Fig. 15, [0076]-[0078], and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated);
generating, by the generating device, a third entrance line measurement length based on the coordinates of the third entrance point (see at least Fig. 15, [0076]-[0078], and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated);
generating, by the generating device, a third error that is a difference between the first entrance line tracking length and the third entrance line measurement length (see at least Fig. 15, [0076]-[0078], and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated); and
first calibrating, by the calibrating device, coordinates of an entrance point of a parking slot corresponding to a smaller value between the second error and the third error among the second parking slot and the third parking slot (see at least Fig. 15, [0076]-[0080], and [0101]; as the edges are updated real-time, the corners (i.e., entrance points) are likewise updated based on the edges being updated. The loss function accounts for utilizing the smallest error calculations as the vehicle progresses through the parking lot aisle).
Claim 15 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wang discloses wherein measuring the coordinates of the first entrance point of the first parking slot includes:
measuring, by the measuring device, the coordinates of the first entrance point of the first parking slot based on a Bird's Eye View (BEV) image through a neural network (see at least [0049]-[0051] and [0076]-[0078]; coordinates of the first corner may be measured via a BEV image using a neural network).
Claim 16 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 8.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0086381 which relates to parking an autonomous vehicle in a perpendicular parking space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666