DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
References
D1: DE102019215393 SCHUMANN et al. April 8, 2021
D2: DE102015101292 HONER et al. August 4, 2016
D3: DE102016113736 FRAPSAUCE et al. February 1, 2018
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101 that 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being nonstatutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitation which is considered to be an abstract idea:
classifying objects into object classes on the basis of information of at least one ultrasonic sensor of a vehicle.
The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the category of a mental process concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Which when given its BRI is interpreted to be a judgement or observation as to whether or not sensor measurements are the same or different than what is considered to be a classification of an object into an object class on the basis of the information on the statistical distribution of the position information and on the statistical distribution of the directional information of the clusters.
Step 2a-Prong 2: The recitation of the additional element(s) of " receiving multiple detections of at least one ultrasonic sensor of a vehicle;" which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) - selecting a particular data source (Electric Power Group).
Therefore, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1-13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1.
With regards to claim 1, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a method for classifying objects (title; ¶¶ 0001 and 0012; figure 1) into object classes on the basis of information from at least one ultrasonic sensor (12) of a vehicle (1), the method comprising the following steps: a) receiving a plurality of detections (figure 4; ¶ 0015) of at least one ultrasonic sensor of a vehicle (¶¶ 0008 and 0010), each detection being associated with a piece of position information (paragraphs [0009], [0024] and [0041]) and a piece of direction (¶ 0019) information (implicit with the spread of reflection points in the lateral direction; ¶¶ 0024 and 0041 the position information indicating the reflection location at which the ultrasonic signal of the at least one ultrasonic sensor has been reflected, and the direction information indicating the direction in which the ultrasonic signal propagates between the reflection location and the at least one ultrasonic sensor (implicit with the definition of a reflection point; ¶ 0024 and 0041; figures 1 and 4); b) forming clusters (¶ 0041; figure 4) of detections on the basis of the received detections, a cluster (80 in figure 4) comprising a plurality of detections (60); c) calculating information on the statistical distribution of the position information and information on the statistical distribution of the direction information of the detections associated with each cluster (¶¶ 0011, 0013, 0020 and 0024); d) classifying the object into an object class on the basis of the information on the statistical distribution (¶¶ 0024- 0025) of the position information and on the statistical distribution of the direction information of the clusters (¶ 0041).
With regards to claim 5, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of the variance of direction (figure 4; ¶¶ 0011, 0013, 0019, 0020, and 0024).
With regards to claims 10 and 11, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a decision tree and a neural network (¶¶ 0014 and 0025).
With regards to claim 12, the D1 reference discloses a system for classifying other objects (¶ 0012).
With regards to claim 14, the D1 reference discloses a system for classifying objects into object classes on the basis of information of at least one ultrasonic (12) sensor of a vehicle (1) with a computing unit (11).
With regards to claim 15, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a vehicle (1).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 2-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 above, and further in combination with D2.
The difference between the D1 reference and claim 2 is that the claim recites the utilization of a covariance matrix. The D2 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize a covariance matrix (¶¶ 0016-0017). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize a covariance matrix as motivated by the D2 reference to enhance the D1 system to detect desirable objects.
With regards to claim 3, the D2 reference discloses the utilization of eigenvalues (¶ 0017). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize eigenvalues as motivated by the D2 reference to enhance the D1 system to detect desirable objects.
With regards to claim 4, the D2 reference discloses comparing eigenvalues (see ¶ 0017).
Claims 6 and 7, are not inventive with regards to Dl (¶¶ 0016, 0024, and 0037).
Claims 8 and 9, are not inventive with regards to Dl (¶¶ 0015, 0041, and claim 10).
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 above, and further in combination with D3.
The difference between the D1 reference and claim 13 is that the claim recites the determining height. The D3 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to determine height (Abstract). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to determine height as motivated by the D3 reference to enhance the D1 system to classify objects as obstacles.
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Isam Alsomiri, can be reached on 571-272-6970.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645