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 .
1. This action is responsive to application filed August 27, 2024.
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.
2. Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15 are 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.
Claims 1, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “monitor a surrounding environment of the vehicle; comparing the obtained perception output data with the stored input data and determining: whether any object detections indicated in the obtained perception output data is indicated in the field-of-view of that sensor or subset of sensors in order to validate any object detections indicated in the obtained perception output data, and whether any free-space area indications in the obtained perception output data is indicated in the field-of-view of that sensor or subset of sensors in order to validate any free-space area indicated in the obtained perception output data”.
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “sensor fusion system”, “plurality of vehicle mounted sensors” in claim 1; “computer program product “ in claim 11, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in claim 12; “system”, “sensor fusion system”, “plurality of vehicle mounted sensors”, “one or more memory storage areas”, “computer program code”, “one or more processors” in claim 13; “vehicle” in claim 15, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “monitoring”, “comparing” and “determining”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user to mentally monitor the surroundings of a vehicle, compare an output of sensors, and determine objects and free space in the surrounding of the vehicle.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements- “plurality of vehicle mounted sensors” in claim 1; “computer program product “ in claim 11, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in claim 12; “system”, “sensor fusion system”, “plurality of vehicle mounted sensors”, “one or more memory storage areas”, “computer program code”, “one or more processors” in claim 13; “vehicle” in claim 15 to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of monitoring the surroundings of a vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include 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, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 10 and 19 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “receive input data and generate perception output data; storing input data of the sensor fusion system” and “obtaining perception output data that is output from the sensor fusion system using the input data obtained over the time period”. The steps of receiving output, storing data and obtaining data from sensors are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering (gathering sensor information of the vehicle), which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., generally gathering data that is to be used to determine a surrounding of a vehicle). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 11-13 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Regarding the additional element of outputting a signal indicative of a status of the sensor fusion system based on a measure of validated objects and a measure of validated free-space areas, this additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly insignificant post-solution activity directed transmitting a displaying a result of the sensor data.
As drafted, “outputting a signal indicative of the status of the sensor fusion system’, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses merely transmitting or generating information (e.g., transmitting/outputting a signal). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 11-13, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, further describe the identified abstract idea “mental steps of determining a percentage of objects detected, validate free space area, and aggregate the measure of validated objects”. In addition, the limitations of claims 4 and 10 further define the storing of the data and transmitting data.
3. Claim 11 is directed towards a computer program product, however, the specification is silent as to what constitutes a computer program product. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO, see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particular when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). Thus, claim 11 is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
4. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 1-15. The closest prior art of record “Pfeifer U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0293772” teaches “monitoring a reliability of an output of a sensor fusion system of a vehicle, wherein the sensor fusion system is configured to receive input data and generate perception output data, the method comprising: storing input data of the sensor fusion system, wherein the input data comprises sensor data, obtained over a time period, from each of a plurality of vehicle-mounted sensors configured to monitor a surrounding environment of the vehicle; obtaining perception output data that is output from the sensor fusion system using the input data obtained over the time period, the obtained perception output data comprising one or more object detections in the surrounding environment of the vehicle and one or more free-space area indications in the surrounding environment of the vehicle; for each sensor or subset of sensors of the plurality of vehicle-mounted sensors”. The prior art of record does not teach “comparing the obtained perception output data with the stored input data and determining: whether any object detections indicated in the obtained perception output data is indicated in the field-of-view of that sensor or subset of sensors in order to validate any object detections indicated in the obtained perception output data, and whether any free-space area indications in the obtained perception output data is indicated in the field-of-view of that sensor or subset of sensors in order to validate any free-space area indicated in the obtained perception output data; outputting a signal indicative of a status of the sensor fusion system based on a measure of validated objects and a measure of validated free-space areas” as in claims 1-15.
5. Claims 9 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669