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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 08/28/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0180878 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection and is reproduced below with the abstract idea bolded and the additional limitations underlined.
An operating method of a moving object, the operating method comprising:
obtaining, from cameras of the moving object, images of surroundings of the moving object that are captured by the cameras [pre solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
determining a candidate area for parking the moving object by performing object detection on the images [mental process/step];
determining whether the candidate area is occupied by performing scene segmentation on the images [mental process/step]; and
based on determining that the candidate area is not occupied, determining whether the moving object is able to be parked into the candidate area based on the candidate area and based on a template area corresponding to a size of the moving object [mental process/step].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claims recite a process. Therefore, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2016.03
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes (mental process)
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations of “determining a candidate area for parking the moving object by performing object detection on the images; determining whether the candidate area is occupied by performing scene segmentation on the images; and based on determining that the candidate area is not occupied, determining whether the moving object is able to be parked into the candidate area based on the candidate area and based on a template area corresponding to a size of the moving object”. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “obtaining, from cameras of the moving object, images of surroundings of the moving object that are captured by the cameras”. That is, other than reciting “obtaining, from cameras of the moving object, images of surroundings of the moving object that are captured by the cameras” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “obtaining, from cameras of the moving object, images of surroundings of the moving object that are captured by the cameras” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (images around the vehicle) and forming a simple judgement (determining an area that is not occupied and large enough, so that the vehicle can park). The mere nominal recitation “obtaining, from cameras of the moving object, images of surroundings of the moving object that are captured by the cameras” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of “obtaining, from cameras of the moving object, images of surroundings of the moving object that are captured by the cameras”. The receiving step from the camera is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the evaluating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In other words the claims are making a determination but does not do anything with the determination.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “obtaining, from cameras of the moving object, images of surroundings of the moving object that are captured by the cameras” were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the camera is anything other than general camera found on vehicles. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Independent claim 11 has similar limitations and is rejected for the same reasons above (the “one or more processor” and “a memory storing instructions…” are general purpose computers used to implement the abstract idea and do not make the claims eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101). Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) 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 2-9 and 12-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
Therefore, claims 1-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §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 (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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3, 7-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 2018/0370566 (Kojo et al.).
With respect to claims 1, 11, 19, and 20
Kojo discloses: An operating method/system of a moving object (see at least Fig 1; #60; and ¶0032), the operating method/system comprising: cameras (see at least Fig 1; #10-13; and ¶0025-27 and ¶0117); one or more processors (#61); a memory (#62 and #63) storing instructions configured to cause the processor to:
obtaining, from camera of the moving object (see at least Fig 1; #10-13; and ¶0025-27 and ¶0117; Discussing the use of cameras), images of surroundings of the moving object that are captured by the cameras (see at least Fig 1 and 3; #10-13; and ¶0025-27 and ¶0117; Showing that the sensors #10-13 collect information around the vehicle.);
performing object detection on the images to generate bounding boxes of vehicles near the vehicle (see at least Fig 1-14; #501, #505, #506, and S102-106; Virtual parking frame and Virtual parking frame group; and ¶0033-36, ¶0042-45, and ¶0086-88; Discussing creating parking frame based on the parked vehicles detected.);
selecting, as a nearest bounding box, one of the bounding boxes determined to be nearest to the vehicle (see at least Fig 1-12; #510; and ¶0079; Discussing selecting the parking frame closes to the subject vehicle.)
determining a candidate parking area by extending the nearest bounding box in a first direction of the bounding box or in a second direction of the bounding box (see at least Fig 2-14; #504; Parking frame and Parked vehicle; and ¶0054-64; Showing the parking frame is larger than the vehicle and the parking frame is changed based on the type of parking.);
determining a candidate area for parking the moving object by performing object detection on the images (see at least Fig 2; #507; and ¶0033 and ¶0070-74; Discussing selecting a candidate parking space);
determining whether the candidate area is occupied by performing scene segmentation on the images (see at least Fig 2 and 7-10; #505-#510; Virtual parking frame and Virtual parking frame group; and ¶0033 and ¶0071-75; Discussing segmenting the scene into parking spaces and determines if the spaces are available.); and
based on determining that the candidate area is not occupied (see at least Fig 2; #508-510; and ¶0070-75; Discussing determining parking space is open), determining whether the moving object is able to be parked into the candidate area (see at least Fig 2; #508-510; and ¶0070-78) based on the candidate area and based on a template area corresponding to a size of the moving object (see at least Fig 2; #508-510; and ¶0070-78; Discussing determining if the vehicle will fit in the parking spot), autonomously parking the vehicle into the candidate area (see at least Fig 2 and 11; #513 and S111; and ¶0033, ¶0074, ¶0084, and ¶0095-97).
With respect to claims 2 and 12
Kojo discloses: wherein the determining of the candidate area comprises:
generating bounding boxes of respective objects detected in the images through the object detection (see at least Fig 1-14; #501, #505, #506, and S102-106; Virtual parking frame and Virtual parking frame group; and ¶0033-36, ¶0042-45, and ¶0086-88; Discussing creating parking frame based on the parked vehicles detected.);
determining, from among the bounding boxes, a bounding box that is nearest to the moving object (see at least Fig 1-12; #510; and ¶0079; Discussing selecting the parking frame closes to the subject vehicle.); and
determining the candidate area based on the nearest bounding box (see at least Fig 1-12; #510; and ¶0079; Discussing selecting the parking frame closes to the subject vehicle.).
With respect to claims 3 and 13
Kojo discloses: wherein the determining of whether the candidate area is occupied comprises:
projecting a result of the scene segmentation to the candidate area (see at least Fig 2; #509-510; and ¶0078-7; Discussing using projection to determine if there is a space for the vehicle.).
With respect to claims 7 and 17
Kojo discloses: wherein the determining of the candidate area further comprises:
selecting between a parking direction of the moving object being perpendicular or parallel based on an angle a coordinate of the moving object forms with the nearest bounding box or the object thereof (see at least Fig 2-11; #504; and ¶0033, ¶0039-45, ¶0054-64, and ¶0101-104).
With respect to claim 8
Kojo discloses: wherein the selecting the parking direction comprises:
determining the parking direction to be perpendicular in response to the angle being within a threshold angular distance of plus or minus 90 degrees (see at least Fig 2-11; #504; and ¶0033, ¶0039-45, ¶0054-64, and ¶0101-104).
With respect to claim 9
Kojo discloses: wherein the selecting the parking direction comprises:
determining the parking direction to be parallel in response to the angle being within a threshold angular distance of 0 degrees 180 or 180 degrees (see at least Fig 2-11; #504; and ¶0033, ¶0039-45, ¶0054-64, and ¶0101-104).
With respect to claim 10
Kojo discloses: wherein the determining of whether the moving object is capable of being parked into the candidate area comprises:
applying the template area to the candidate area (see at least Fig 2; #508-510; and ¶0070-78) and, in response to the template area being includable in the candidate area (see at least Fig 2; #508-510; and ¶0070-78), determining that the moving object is able to be parked in the candidate area (see at least Fig 2; #508-510; and ¶0070-78).
With respect to claim 19
Kojo discloses:
determining whether to extend the nearest bounding box in the first direction or in the second direction based on an angle determined according to a coordinate system of the vehicle and the nearest bounding box (see at least Fig 2-11; #504; and ¶0033, ¶0039-45, ¶0054-64, and ¶0101-104)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0045448 (Kakinami) Discusses using a camera and bounding planes to determine the dimensions of a parking space.
US 8098174 (Moshchuk et al.) Discusses segmenting a representation of an area to park between 2 objects.
US 2019/0147243 (Ono) Discussing using bound boxes to determine occupied parking spaces.
US 2022/0198928 (Liu) Discusses identifying parking spaces using bounding boxes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661