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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2026, 08/30/2024. The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 10 and 11 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 10 and 11 recite: acquiring measurement data outputted by a measurement device; detecting at least one surface of an object from the measurement data; estimating a direction of the object based on the surface; and estimating an entire area of the object, based on the direction and the measurement data.
The claim limitations setting forth an abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above: any remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The claims recite a judicial exception. The highlighted portions constitute an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, these portions recite limitations that correspond to abstract idea exceptions. The highlighted portions qualify as mental processes, i.e., concepts practically performable in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or practically performable by a human using a pen and paper or mathematical concepts. For example, “acquiring measurement data”, “detecting at least one surface of an object”, “estimating a direction of the object based on the surface; and estimating an entire area of the object, based on the direction and the measurement data” has a scope that a mental process that could be performed by a human observer, who observes an object and concludes or estimates the objects’ size and direction/orientation.
Also, specifically in claim 10, the claim includes “executed by a computer”, and “ a measurement device”. However, merely implementing an abstract idea, e.g., mental process, on a generic computer or in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additionally, the claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, the claim does not show any output after performing acquiring, detecting and estimating.
Claims 10 and 11 are therefore not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, phrase “estimate a direction of the object based on the surface” is unclear. What constitutes the “surface of the object” and how the direction estimated; for example, is the direction estimated by a center, orientation, or heading? Also, the “entire area” is unclear; without defining what the “entire area” is?
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11 are rejected for the same reason stated in claim 1 above.
Claims 4-9 are indefinite due to their dependencies.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 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 limitations are:
“an acquisition unit”, “a surface detection unit”, “a direction estimation unit”, and “an entire area estimation unit”, “a size estimation unit”, “a representative position determination unit”,” a segment detection unit”, “a tracking unit”, in claims 1-11. These limitation uses generic placeholder “unit”; therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 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 to avoid it 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 recites 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 § 102
9. 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)(l) 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al., (US 2019/0179332 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, Cheng et al., disclose an information processing device (the driving control device 1011 or cloud server 103, Fig.1 and [0039]) comprising:
an acquisition unit (1012, Fig. 1) configured to acquire measurement data outputted by a measurement device (paragraph [0044] and [0050], “The vehicle sensor 1012 may collect the external environment data and vehicle state data when the vehicle is traveling”);
a surface detection unit (the clustering, [0051], and convex hull generation [0057] logic/unit) configured to detect at least one surface of an object from the measurement data ([0050], the device receives the 3D point cloud data from the acquisition unit (sensor 1012), see [0051] performing the “clustering each obstacle point cloud is a point cloud characterizing an obstacle”, and see Fig.3, these point clouds represent surfaces or partial surfaces of obstacles, and the long side of the rectangle represents a planar or surface of the obstacle);
a direction estimation unit (a candidate direction information logic, [0053]) configured to estimate a direction of the object based on the surface ([0054], “the candidate direction information of the target obstacle point cloud is used for characterizing a possible driving direction of a target obstacle”, and [0058], [0060], using “two endpoints of each side of the generated convex hull or using a line segment formed by a 2D to define directions”); and
an entire area estimation unit (the device executes unit/logic to determine the area smallest circumscribing rectangle, [0065]) configured to estimate an entire area (the “rectangle”, [0065]) of the object (obstacle, [0065]), based on the direction (the direction indicated by the candidate direction information”, [0061]) and the measurement data (target obstacle point cloud, [0061])
Regarding claim 4, Cheng et al., as discussed in claimed 1, disclose wherein the object being a vehicle ([0051], “the types of obstacle point clouds may include: a motor vehicle”), and wherein the surface detection unit is configured to detect the at least one surface of the vehicle from the measurement data ([0101], “the electronic device may define an average value of first distances of points … when the obstacle type of the target obstacle point cloud is determined as a motor vehicle type”, showing the electronic device has detected surface points belonging to the motor vehicle).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Cheng et al., as discussed in claimed 1, disclose a representative position determination unit (the device executes a position determination unit/logic, see paragraphs [0073] and [0074] ) configured to determine a representative position of the object (the rectangle of the obstacle) based on the entire area (see Fig.3B, and [0073], [0074], the central axis of the smallest circumscribing rectangle is determined. The midpoint/central indicates a representative position of the object). Cheng et al., also disclose a tracking unit (the device executes a tracking logic, see paragraphs [0073] and [0074]) configured to track the object ([0050], “The electronic device may analyze and process the received various kinds of sensor data to identify and track an obstacle in the external environment of the vehicle”) based on the transition of the representative position in time series (see Fig.3, and [0051], [0052], the tracking/observing the set of the point cloud overtime).
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, 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., in view of Takagi (US 2005/0243301A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng et al., as discussed in claim 4, do not disclose the surface detection unit being configured to detect data representing reflectors of the vehicle from the measurement data and detect a rear side surface of the vehicle based on the data as claimed. Takagi discloses a laser radar being configured to detect data representing reflectors of the vehicle from the measurement data ([0008], “reflected signals each having a high intensity can be obtained from the reflectors “) and detect a rear side surface of the vehicle based on the data ([0008], “the positions of the left and right edges of the rear face of a preceding vehicle can be detected”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng et al., by having the reflectors as taught by Takagi, to provide more stable tracking, and thus, getting better performance for the system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., in view of Unnikrishnan et al., (US2021/0209785A1).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng et al., as discussed in claim 1, do not disclose the reflection intensity value for each measurement direction by receiving reflected light of emitted light as claimed. Unnikrishnan et al., disclose the measurement device (“imaging radar”, [0126]) generating the measurement data including a reflection intensity value for each measurement direction by receiving reflected light of emitted light ([0126], “ The intensity of a pixel in the image is the intensity of returns from a reflector at that particular range and azimuth”, and wherein the surface detection unit is configured to detect the surface based on the reflection intensity value ([0126], using image-based processing and/or deep neural networks, when a target vehicle is detected in an imaging radar image.. to determine a size (e.g., a length and/or height) and a position and/or orientation of a target object”, inherently including a surface/face of the target). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng et al., by utilizing the teaching of Unnikrishnan et al., to provide more precise dimension of the objects, getting better detection and response.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., in view of Taghavi et al., (US 2022/0012466 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng et al., as discussed in claim 1, disclose the device executes a logic to identify the “classify and identify each obstacle point cloud”, [0051]; then, [0056]-[0057], “ a convex hull of the determined set of 2D plane coordinates is generated” based on the obstacle point cloud, the obstacle point cloud could be as the segment. However, if not, Taghavi et al., disclose a segment detection unit configured to detect a segment representing the object (Fig. 3, [0075], “At step 310, a segmentation process is carried out on the data points in a 3D point cloud 210 to determine one or more segments 316 in the 3D point cloud. Each segment 316 represents a candidate for an object in the 3D point cloud and has a center 315”), wherein the surface detection unit is configured to detect the surface based on the segment ([0075], [0076], “The perception module 176 is configured to generate a BEV bounding box 260, … based on an object cluster 335 of an object from a 3D point cloud 210”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng et al., by utilizing the teaching of Taghavi et al., to provide more precise surface data, leading to better direction estimation and area estimation.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 2, 3 would be allowed once the 112b rejection is overcome.
Claims 2 and 3 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to disclose a size estimation unit configured to estimate a size of the object, based on a segment representing the object detected from the measurement data, wherein the entire area estimation unit is configured to estimate the entire area, based on a history of the sizes estimated based on the measurement data in which the object is detected, the direction, and the surface.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)272-2328. 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. Visithttps://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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878