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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “It is believed that claims 1-20 satisfy the subject matter requirement of 35 U.S.C. §101. For example, claim 1 has been amended to recite making a plurality of detections by a plurality of heterogenous sensors, generating a single combined measurement grid based on subsets of the detections, and determining occupancy probabilities each determined directly from the detections of a respective cell of the single combined measurement grid. Further, the recited features of claims 1-20, as discussed further below with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and § 103, are not well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Consequently, claims 1-20 satisfy step two of the Alice analysis and therefore satisfy 35 U.S.C. §101. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Claim 1 recites a mental process of generating a combined measurement grid from sensor data and determining occupancy probabilities for each cell in the grid. There are no limitations in the claim that preclude a human from doing these tasks mentally or with pen and paper: there is no time constraint or minimum complexity claimed that forces the claim to be performed quickly and in a manner that a human could not, if given enough time.
Merely reciting a generic computer to perform the abstract idea does not take it out of the mental process grouping. The sensors and obtaining of detection data is also described generically, amounting to extra-solution activity. Likewise, merely “outputting” data is post-solution activity.
Thus, the claims are ineligible.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for generating an occupancy grid, comprising:
obtaining detection information from a plurality of heterogeneous sensors by making a plurality of detections by the plurality of heterogeneous sensors, the detection information comprising a plurality of sensor measurement grids each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of sensors, and each comprising a respective subset of the plurality of detections;
generating a single combined measurement grid based on the plurality of sensor measurement grids, including the subsets of the plurality of detections, of the detection information from the plurality of heterogeneous sensors;
determining occupancy probabilities for a plurality of cells in the single combined measurement grid, each of the occupancy probabilities corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of cells and being determined directly from the detections of the respective one of the plurality of cells;
and outputting the occupancy grid based at least in part on the occupancy probabilities.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of generating a single measurement grid based on sensor data and determining an occupancy probability for the plurality of cells in the grid. This is equivalent to a person seeing displayed sensor data, putting it into grid form, and determining cell occupancy based on the displayed data. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person observing displayed sensor feedback could generate an occupancy grid with presence probability of each cell. The mere nominal recitation that the process is being executed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for generating an occupancy grid, comprising:
obtaining detection information from a plurality of heterogeneous sensors by making a plurality of detections by the plurality of heterogeneous sensors, the detection information comprising a plurality of sensor measurement grids each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of sensors, and each comprising a respective subset of the plurality of detections;
generating a single combined measurement grid based on the plurality of sensor measurement grids, including the subsets of the plurality of detections, of the detection information from the plurality of heterogeneous sensors;
determining occupancy probabilities for a plurality of cells in the single combined measurement grid, each of the occupancy probabilities corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of cells and being determined directly from the detections of the respective one of the plurality of cells;
and outputting the occupancy grid based at least in part on the occupancy probabilities.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, and thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The obtaining steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The outputting steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional limitation of a sensor is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the process steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 10 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore ineligible based on a similar rationale.
The dependent claims are likewise ineligible. Claims 2, 7-9, 11, 16-18, and 20 generally add to the mental process, while claims 3-6 and 12-15 generally add mere extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims are 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240312218 by Krehl et al. (hereinafter “Krehl”), further in view of US20220214444 by Das et al. (hereinafter “Das”).
Regarding claim 1, Krehl teaches A method for generating an occupancy grid, comprising: obtaining detection information from a plurality of heterogeneous sensors by making a plurality of detections by the plurality of heterogeneous sensors, the detection information comprising a plurality of sensor measurement grids see for example paragraphs [0031]-[0033], where the system takes measurements from sensors to create a sensor fused BEV (bird’s eye view) grid map, including doing so for each sensor type (e.g. a LIDAR grid map and a radar grid map).
generating a single combined measurement grid based on the plurality of sensor measurement grids, including the subsets of the plurality of detections, of the detection information from the plurality of heterogeneous sensors; see again paragraph [0031]: “The separate BEV volumes may be concatenated or otherwise combined by a hybrid BEV module 230 of the vehicle computing system 200. In variations, the learned sensor data processing module 210 can transfer the raw sensor data to BEV space by reprojection using inverse sensor models and/or coordinate transforms, and then fuse the sensor data from the multiple sensor types to generate a sensor-fused BEV volume (e.g., comprising each of the image data, LIDAR data, radar data, etc.) to be processed by the hybrid BEV module 230” ¶ [0031] (emphasis added). See also paragraphs [0032]-[0033].
determining occupancy probabilities for a plurality of cells in the single combined measurement grid, each of the occupancy probabilities corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of cells and being determined directly from the detections of the respective one of the plurality of cells; see for example paragraph [0038], where the system can use the fused map for occupancy prediction of each grid of the map.
and outputting the occupancy grid based at least in part on the occupancy probabilities. See for example paragraph [0011], where the system uses its map information to “guarantee that occupancy information and other sensor-based details are available to, for example, a motion planner or environment analysis module of the vehicle.”
Krehl does not explicitly teach the detection information comprising a plurality of sensor measurement grids each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of sensors.
However, Das teaches the detection information comprising a plurality of sensor measurement grids each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of sensors. See for example paragraphs [0113]-[114] where the system creates grid maps for individual sensors (e.g. two radar sensor grid maps and two lidar sensor grid maps) before fusing them into a single fused grid.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor fusion system of Krehl with the individual sensor grid maps of Das with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to fuse individual sensors into a comprehensive grid, which can improve efficiency and accuracy of the system and its ability to recognize important features.
Claims 10 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Krehl teaches wherein generating the single combined measurement grid includes combining the detection information in a single data buffer. See for example paragraphs [0031]-[0033], where the sensor data is combined into a single measurement grid.
Claims 11 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Krehl teaches wherein the plurality of heterogeneous sensors includes a first radar configured to detect targets in a first area, and a second radar configured to detect targets in a second area that is different from the first area. See for example paragraph [0039] and Figure 3, where the sensors include multiple radar sensors (and their areas of detection are at least partially different, even if they overlap).
Claim 12 has similar limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Krehl teaches wherein the plurality of heterogeneous sensors includes a lidar. See for example paragraph [0029], where the sensors can include lidar.
Claim 13 has similar limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Krehl teaches wherein the plurality of heterogeneous sensors includes a camera. See again paragraph [0029], where the sensors can include a camera.
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Krehl teaches wherein the occupancy probabilities include an occupied probability and a free probability for each of the plurality of cells. See for example paragraph [0038], where the system can use the fused map for occupancy prediction of each grid of the map.
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, Krehl does not explicitly teach, but Das teaches teaches wherein the occupancy probabilities include a dynamic probability and a static probability for each of the plurality of cells. See for example paragraphs [0123]-[0125] where the system classifies objects in the fused grid map into static or dynamic objects. See also paragraphs [0100], [0107], [0110]-[0112], and [0118] where the system determines occupancy based on sensor confidence and probability.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor fusion system of Krehl with the individual sensor grid maps of Das with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to fuse individual sensors into a comprehensive grid, which can improve efficiency and accuracy of the system and its ability to recognize important features.
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Krehl does not explicitly teach, but Das teaches wherein the occupancy grid includes a grid cell state with a velocity indication for at least one of the plurality of cells. See for example paragraphs [0123]-[0125] where the system classifies objects in the fused grid map into static or dynamic objects. See also paragraphs [0100]-[0107] where the system measures the velocities of objects in the grid map.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor fusion system of Krehl with the individual sensor grid maps of Das with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to fuse individual sensors into a comprehensive grid, which can improve efficiency and accuracy of the system and its ability to recognize important features.
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krehl in view of Das, and further in view of US20230095384 by Sharma Banjade et al. (hereinafter “Sharma Banjade”).
Regarding claim 6, Krehl does not explicitly teach, but Sharma Banjade teaches wherein obtaining the detection information includes receiving remote sensor detection information via a network interface. See for example paragraphs [0040], [0076], [0079], and [0053], where occupancy maps are used for path planning, and “VAMs” (Vehicle Awareness Messages) are transmitted between entities, including the single occupancy grid map.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor fusion system of Krehl, modified by the individual sensor grid maps of Das, with the occupancy grid system of Sharma Banjade with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to fuse remote sensors into a the vehicle grid, improving safety of the vehicle and reducing blind spots.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
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 JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666