CTNF 18/870,910 CTNF 88920 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. This office action is in response to an application filed on 12/02/2024. The applicant submits two Information Disclosure Statements dated 12/02/2024. The applicant makes a claim for Foreign priority to an application filed on 06/23/2022 and the applicant makes a claim to Domestic priority to an application filed on 06/16/2023. Claims 1 – 10 are canceled and claims 11 – 20 will be examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process of evaluation without significantly more. The claims are evaluated with respect to the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance and the MPEP. Example 40 of the guidance is used as the threshold for evaluating the claims. Step 1 The claims recite a method for a relevance assessment of objects in an environment of a motor vehicle. Therefore, the claims pass Step 1 by stating one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A Prong I Independent claim 11 is reproduced below with the abstract idea and pre/post solution activity identified. Claim 11 A method for a relevance assessment of objects in an environment of a motor vehicle, the method comprising: recording environment data indicating objects located in a respective environment of the motor vehicle; (Mental process) determining individual relative movements of the objects relative to the motor vehicle; (Mental Process) determining at least one respective object-specific distance for each detected object as a function of driving parameters predetermined for the motor vehicle, which distance would be required to reach a stable state of the motor vehicle behind the respective object; (Mental Process) and performing a relevance check for each of the detected objects on the basis of the respective at least one object-specific distance, with the respective object being classified as relevant or not relevant for the guidance of the motor vehicle. (Mental Process) With respect to MPEP 2106.07 the inventive concept is summarized as evaluating whether a vehicle will need to take evasive maneuver action based upon the proximity of a potential collision threat. With respect to MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(III) the operations identified in the independent claim may be performed in the mind. A person, while driving a vehicle, is constantly scanning the area while driving to identify potential collision threats. With respect to the 2019 Guidance, with respect to example 40, the claims do not identify the thresholds for concluding whether an object will require the vehicle to take action to avoid a collision. In the example, the claim identifies specific features and the data collected to be processed. The claim does not identify the data collected to perform the data processing. The features of environment data, relative movement, and performing a relevance check for each of the detected objects on the basis of the receptive. With respect to the dependent claims, 12 - 20, the claims identify three different ranges for executing different analysis of the potential threat. However, the claims do not identify what operations take places based upon the various scenarios. Therefore, the claims fail Step 2A Prong I by failing to perform an action and identify the specific data collected and how it is to be processed and the result of the processing. Step 2A Prong II This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to satisfy the requirements of 2106.04(d)(1-2). By failing to show a new or improved methodology of data collected, the significance of the respective three ranges or the actual objective measured distances, and not identify what actions are taken based upon the calculations. Therefore, the claims fail the standards established in the MPEP. With respect to the 2019, the claims are not specific in the various features identified in Step 2A Prong I. In addition, the claims do not identify specific threshold for the analysis. Thus, the breadth of the claims fail the standards established in the 2019 guidance example 40 and thus fail Step 2A Prong II. Step 2B The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims fail the requirements of MPEP 2106.05(a-h) and the 2019 Guidance. The claims do not identify what functional operations are performed based upon the respective analysis. Thus, all the operations may be performed in the mind. Therefore, the claims fail to claim actions taken and specifically when they are taken based upon the determinations and fail Step 2B. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills US 2014/0032093 in view of Reschka US 11,577,741 . As per claim 11, A method for a relevance assessment of objects in an environment of a motor vehicle, the method comprising: recording environment data indicating objects located in a respective environment of the motor vehicle; (Mills paragraph 0026 discloses, “The collision threat controller 24, as shown in FIG. 2, receives inputs from the sensor 14, the camera 16, and the vehicle dynamics detector 26. The collision threat controller 24 may include a microprocessor 52 and memory 54 according to one embodiment, and may be configured as part of a shared controller used for other purposes or configured with multiple microprocessors and memory units integrated in various locations and components as parts of or separate from the host vehicle 10…..The controller 24 processes the inputs received with a fusion module routine 56 and a plausibility module routine 58 to determine whether a countermeasure 60 should be actuated to avoid or mitigate a potential collision of the host vehicle 10 with the object 30.”) determining individual relative movements of the objects relative to the motor vehicle; (Reschka Col 11 lines 9 – 14) determining at least one respective object-specific distance for each detected object as a function of driving parameters predetermined for the motor vehicle, which distance would be required to reach a stable state of the motor vehicle behind the respective object; (Mills paragraph 0007 discloses, “A first data set of the object is measured with the object detection sensor, including a first range and range rate of the object relative to the host vehicle, a first angle and angle rate of the object relative to the host vehicle, and a relative movement determination of the object.”) and performing a relevance check for each of the detected objects on the basis of the respective at least one object-specific distance, with the respective object being classified as relevant or not relevant for the guidance of the motor vehicle. (Reschka Col 9 lines 43 – 48) Mills discloses a collision detection system with a plausibility module. Mills does not disclose the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Reschka teaches of the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Reschka et.al. into the invention of Mills. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure accurate detection and prediction of a potential collision. As per claim 12, The method according to claim 11, wherein a maximum permissible jerk of the motor vehicle is also taken into account when determining the respective distance. (Reschka Col 21 lines 20 – 22) Mills discloses a collision detection system with a plausibility module. Mills does not disclose the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Reschka teaches of the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Reschka et.al. into the invention of Mills. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure accurate detection and prediction of a potential collision. As per claim 13, The method according to claim 11, wherein the relevance is determined for all detected objects, a driving tunnel in which the motor vehicle is likely to move is estimated and only those of the detected objects which have been classified as relevant and are located in the driving tunnel are output as relevant objects for a driving assistance function of the motor vehicle. (Mills paragraph 0045 discloses, “the countermeasure 60 (FIG. 2) may actuate based additionally on whether the object 30 is in the path of travel of the vehicle 10 and whether the confidence value 36 of the object exceeds the confidence threshold 80.”) As per claim 14, The method according to claim 11, wherein the determination of the at least one distance comprises: for the detected objects, in each case a first distance, which results as a minimum distance for safe driving of the motor vehicle, and in each case a greater second distance, which results from a more comfortable vehicle guidance in comparison therewith, and the first distance, the second distance, or a distance lying in between is used for the relevance check. (Mills paragraph 0022 discloses, “The second set of target data of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10 includes a second range measurement R.sub.2 between the object 30 and the host vehicle 10, a second range rate {dot over (R)}.sub.2 of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle .theta..sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle rate {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a width measurement of the object W.sub.LEAD, an object classification 34 of the object 30, and a confidence value 36 of the object 30.”) and ( Reschka Col 34 lines 33 - 37) Mills discloses a collision detection system with a plausibility module. Mills does not disclose the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Reschka teaches of the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Reschka et.al. into the invention of Mills. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure accurate detection and prediction of a potential collision. As per claim 15, The method according to claim 14, wherein a driving tunnel in which the motor vehicle is likely to move is estimated, a quality of this estimate is determined and, based on this, a third distance is determined, which is smaller in the case of lower quality and larger in the case of higher quality, and when the third distance is smaller than the first distance, an object is only classified as relevant if its distance from the motor vehicle corresponds at most to the first distance; (Reschka Col 21 lines 20 – 22) when the third distance is greater than the second distance, an object is only classified as relevant if its distance from the motor vehicle corresponds at most to the second distance; (Mills paragraph 0022 discloses, “The second set of target data of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10 includes a second range measurement R.sub.2 between the object 30 and the host vehicle 10, a second range rate {dot over (R)}.sub.2 of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle .theta..sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle rate {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a width measurement of the object W.sub.LEAD, an object classification 34 of the object 30, and a confidence value 36 of the object 30.”) and when the third distance lies between the first distance and the second distance, an object is only classified as relevant if its distance from the motor vehicle corresponds at most to the third distance. (Mills paragraph 0022 discloses, “The second set of target data of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10 includes a second range measurement R.sub.2 between the object 30 and the host vehicle 10, a second range rate {dot over (R)}.sub.2 of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle .theta..sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle rate {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a width measurement of the object W.sub.LEAD, an object classification 34 of the object 30, and a confidence value 36 of the object 30.”) Mills discloses a collision detection system with a plausibility module. Mills does not disclose the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Reschka teaches of the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Reschka et.al. into the invention of Mills. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure accurate detection and prediction of a potential collision. As per claim 16, The method according to claim 15, wherein the quality is determined as a function of distance and the third distance is used as the distance at which a predetermined quality threshold value is undershot. (Mills paragraph 0022 discloses, “The second set of target data of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10 includes a second range measurement R.sub.2 between the object 30 and the host vehicle 10, a second range rate {dot over (R)}.sub.2 of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle .theta..sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle rate {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a width measurement of the object W.sub.LEAD, an object classification 34 of the object 30, and a confidence value 36 of the object 30.”) As per claim 17, The method according to claim 11, wherein in the event that a stable state of the motor vehicle is already given with respect to a detected object, a relevance range extended by the motor vehicle in the direction of this object, within which objects are classified as relevant, is limited to a predetermined standard distance or the current distance to the respective object. (Mills paragraph 0007 discloses, “A first data set of the object is measured with the object detection sensor, including a first range and range rate of the object relative to the host vehicle, a first angle and angle rate of the object relative to the host vehicle, and a relative movement determination of the object.”) As per claim 18, The method according claim 11, wherein objects classified as relevant are only classified as no longer relevant from a rejection distance which is greater than the distance up to which they would be classified as relevant. ( Reschka Col 34 lines 33 - 37) Mills discloses a collision detection system with a plausibility module. Mills does not disclose the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Reschka teaches of the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Reschka et.al. into the invention of Mills. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure accurate detection and prediction of a potential collision. As per claim 19, An assistance system for a motor vehicle, having an interface for detecting environment data which indicate the positions and relative movement of objects, a processor device and a computer-readable data memory coupled thereto, the assistance system being configured to crrying out a method according to claim 11. ( Reschka Col 34 lines 33 - 37) Mills discloses a collision detection system with a plausibility module. Mills does not disclose the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Reschka teaches of the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Reschka et.al. into the invention of Mills. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure accurate detection and prediction of a potential collision. As per claim 20, A motor vehicle, comprising an environment sensor system for detecting objects in a respective environment of the motor vehicle and an assistance system coupled thereto according to claim 19. (Mills paragraph 0022 discloses, “The second set of target data of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10 includes a second range measurement R.sub.2 between the object 30 and the host vehicle 10, a second range rate {dot over (R)}.sub.2 of the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle .theta..sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a second angle rate {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.2 of the direction to the object 30 relative to the host vehicle 10, a width measurement of the object W.sub.LEAD, an object classification 34 of the object 30, and a confidence value 36 of the object 30.”) and ( Reschka Col 34 lines 33 - 37) Mills discloses a collision detection system with a plausibility module. Mills does not disclose the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Reschka teaches of the movement of the object relative to the vehicle. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Reschka et.al. into the invention of Mills. Such incorporation is motivated by the need to ensure accurate detection and prediction of a potential collision. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst). 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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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. /TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/870,910 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights