DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status.
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-9 filed and preliminary amended on 08/30/2024 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 8, and 9 are independent form.
Priority
3. This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/00938 filed on 3/4/2022.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4-1. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4-2. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4-3. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data...”, “a second acquisition unit configured to acquire movement region information...”, and “an object detection unit configured to detect...” in claim 1; and;
“an acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data...”, “a first generation unit configured to generate movement history information ...”, and “a second generation unit configured to generate...” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea without significantly more).
6-1. Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites an information processing device using generic unit(s)-plus-function language comprising:
[1] a first acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data, which is a set of data for each point measured by a measurement device;
[2] a second acquisition unit configured to acquire movement region information regarding movement regions where objects move on a horizontal plane in a measurement range of the measurement device; and
[3] an object detection unit configured to detect, based on the movement region information, a cluster of the data for each object from the point cloud data.
Step 1:
With regard to step (1), claim 1, is directed to an information processing device including limitation(s) using generic placeholder(s) (units) coupled with functional language. Because these claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, claim 1 is one of statutory categories of invention, i.e., a machine and/or manufacture.
Step 2A-1:
With regard to 2A-1, The elements recited in claim 1, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a process(es) which is/are directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts. For example, “detect[ing], based on the movement region information, a cluster of the data for each object from the point cloud data” in step [3], in the context of this claim, encompasses mental observation, evaluations, judgments, opinions, and/or activities that “can be performed in human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, therefore the limitation falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation is directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts, then the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A-2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "integration into a practical application" to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements of “acquir[ing] point cloud data” in step [1] and “acquir[ing] movement region information regarding movement regions” in step [2] under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As explained above, the information processing device including limitation(s) by using generic placeholder(s) (units) coupled with functional language, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The “acquir[ing]” in steps [1] and [2] were considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These conclusions should be reevaluated in Step 2B. The limitations are mere data gathering and/or output recited at high level of generality and amount to receiving (i.e., acquiring), accessing, or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements present mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim therefore is ineligible.
6-2. Regarding dependent claims 2-7, they are viewed individually, these additional elements are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, either covers performance of the limitation in the mind, performing a mathematical algorithm or extra solution activity for data gathering and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. And, when the claims are viewed as a whole, they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment (i.e., computer-based analysis of generic data). Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
6-3. Regarding independent claim 8, the claim recites an information processing device comprising:
[1] an acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data, which is a set of data for each point measured by a measurement device;
[2] a first generation unit configured to generate movement history information for each position on a horizontal plane in a measurement range of the measurement device, the movement history information indicating moving directions of objects, which passed through the each position, at the each position; and
[3] a second generation unit configured to generate, based on the movement history information, movement region information.
Step 1:
With regard to step (1), claim 8, is directed to an information processing device including limitation(s) using generic placeholder(s) (units) coupled with functional language. Because these claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, claim 8 is one of statutory categories of invention, i.e., a machine and/or manufacture.
Step 2A-1:
With regard to 2A-1, The elements recited in claim 8, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a process(es) which is/are directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts. For example, each of “generat[ing] movement history information for each position on a horizontal plane in a measurement range of the measurement device” in step [2] and “generat[ing], based on the movement history information, movement region information“ in step [3] in the context of this claim, can be done by a human using a pen and paper, therefore the limitation are directed to organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 8 therefore recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation is directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts, then the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A-2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "integration into a practical application" to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements of “acquir[ing] point cloud data” in step [1] under their broadest reasonable interpretation, is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 8 as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As explained above, the information processing device including limitation(s) by using generic placeholder(s) (units) coupled with functional language, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The “acquir[ing]” in steps [1] was considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These conclusions should be reevaluated in Step 2B. The limitations are mere data gathering and/or output recited at high level of generality and amount to receiving (i.e., acquiring), accessing, or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements present mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 8 therefore is ineligible.
6-4. Regarding independent claim 9, the claims recite a method which is analogous to apparatus claim 1, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 1 are applicable to claim 9. Furthermore, the claim is a method that does not recite any additional elements, and according to step 2A-2 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not recite any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Because the claim fails under (2A), the claim is further evaluated under (2B). The claim herein does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al (CN113345237, hereinafter “Wu”). A machine translated English version of document CN113345237 was provided by the Applicant in the IDS received on 01/06/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an information processing device (the method, system, and CRM for “lane change recognition and prediction based on roadside lidar for extracting vehicle trajectories”; see par.0001 (i.e., the English version, referred to the same hereinafter)) comprising:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data, which is a set of data for each point measured by a measurement device (see step 1-A and par.[n0041]: “Scan the entire point cloud map obtained [by the LIDAR associated a vehicle] after background filtering, find any core point, and expand the core point, that is, find all density-connected data points originating from the core point”);
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire movement region information regarding movement regions where objects move on a horizontal plane in a measurement range of the measurement device (see par.[n0060]: “In a two-dimensional plane, the lanes are divided into small squares. Based on the point cloud density of the small squares, the sparsest point cloud density is selected to divide different lanes. Continuous nonlinear lane lines are displayed in the point cloud map through multi-segment linear fitting. In addition, the number and direction of lanes are estimated based on the direction of vehicle movement.”); and
an object detection unit configured to detect, based on the movement region information, a cluster of the data for each object from the point cloud data (see par.[n0167]: “When the lidar scans a vehicle target, [...], and calculate the number of adjacent lanes L of the vehicle. The calculation method for the number of adjacent lanes L is as follows: based on the coordinates of the front key point in the two-dimensional top view of the vehicle point cloud cluster, find the small square where the coordinates of the front key point are located in the lane line storage matrix. After the position of the small square is determined, determine the lane where the vehicle is located and the direction of movement of the vehicle in the lane, and determine how many lanes in the same direction are on both sides of the lane.”).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the object detection unit is configured to prohibit the data existing on different movement regions from being detected as the cluster representing a same object (see par.[n0213]: “acquire point cloud data of on-road targets and background; the data processing module is used to: filter out background point cloud data, filter out pedestrian point cloud data, cluster vehicle point clouds, track vehicle targets in different frames, divide lanes, and match vehicle targets to the corresponding lanes”. See para. [n0217]: “The lane boundary recognition module is used to: generate lane boundary lines and match on-the road vehicles to the corresponding lanes”. In other words, wherein a targeted vehicle is determined by clustering the vehicle points on same lane and excluding that located on another lanes.).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the movement regions are lanes, and wherein the object detection unit is configured to prohibit the data existing on different lanes from being detected as the cluster representing the same object (ibid.).
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses the information processing device according claim 1, wherein, in a case of detecting, based on a predicted position of a tracked object detected at a past processing time, the cluster corresponding to the tracked object at a current processing time, the object detection unit is configured to exclude the data existing in a different movement region from the predicted position and detect the cluster (see par.[n0213]: “[...] acquire point cloud data of on-road targets and the background; the data processing module is used to: filter out background point cloud data, filter out pedestrian point cloud data, cluster vehicle point clouds, track vehicle targets in different frames [i.e., different times], divide lanes, and match vehicle targets to the corresponding lanes”. In other words, wherein a targeted vehicle is determined by clustering the vehicle points on same lane/region and excluding that located on another lanes/regions.).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a segment extraction unit configured to extract segments representing sets of data, wherein the object detection unit is configured to detect one or more segments for each object as the cluster (see fig.2(a)-(c) and par.[n0164]: “In a two-dimensional plane, the lanes are divided [segmented] into small squares. Based on the point cloud density of the small squares, the sparsest point cloud density is selected to divide different lanes. The continuous nonlinear lane lines are displayed in the point cloud map through multi-segment linear fitting...”).
Regarding claim 8, 9, each of them is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
Regarding claim 4, Although Wu does not explicitly disclose, if a moving direction of a first lane and a moving direction of a second lane indicated by the movement region information are different, the object detection unit is configured to prohibit the data on the first lane and the data on the second lane from being detected as the cluster representing the same object. However, Wu, e.g., see par.[n0213]: states “[...], cluster vehicle point clouds, track vehicle targets in different frames, divide lanes, and match vehicle targets to the corresponding lanes”; which means that a target vehicle is determined by clustering the vehicle points on same lane and excluding that located on other lanes including those with opposite directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to appreciate that a target vehicle is determined by clustering the vehicle points on same lane and excluding that located on another lane with a different direction. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to “match on-the road vehicles to the corresponding lanes” as taught by Wu, see, para. [n0217]. Therefore, the claim is unpatentable over Wu.
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Zeng et al (US2016/0203374, hereinafter “Zeng”).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses the claimed invention except for detecting the cluster corresponding to another object newly detected at a current processing time recited by the claim. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zeng teaches identifying new targets (i.e., new vehicles)) based on any clusters of measurement points which do not group with known targets at the previous step (see 412 of fig.10 and par.62, lines 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Zeng into the teachings of Wu and identify new vehicles based on any clusters of measurement points which do not group with known targets at the previous step taught by Zeng. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to establish “collision warning and collision avoidance systems” as taught by Zeng, cf., Par.62. Therefore, the claim is unpatentable over Wu in view of Zeng.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. 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; 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.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights