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 .
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be directed to significantly more than the exception itself. See 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618, 74624 (Dec. 16, 2014). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Id
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to acquire map information including the site; extract candidates for the parking region by dividing the site using the map information; and derive an accuracy of each of the candidates and estimate the parking region, without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, acquire map information including the site, is referring to gathering data under insignificant Extra-solution activity e.g. pre-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); extract candidates for the parking region by dividing the site using the map information; referring to mental process of abstract idea, by visually observing the gathered data, the concepts are performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III); and derive an accuracy of each of the candidates and estimate the parking region, further referring to mental process of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, meets the requirement of the step 2A, prong one of the guidelines for including an abstract idea.
The claim is then considered under step 2A, prong two, for integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Based on the above conditions, Examiner does not believe that the language of claim 1 includes any of the qualifying conditions above. In fact, the limitations of claim 1 tend to lean more toward conditions that are not qualified i.e. “Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)”. Therefore claim 1 fails step 2A, prong two.
Additionally, claim 1 is considered under step 2B to include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Based on the above conditions, Examiner is unable to identify one or more claimed elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim language leaning over to non-qualifying condition i.e. “ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception”. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (MPEP 2106.04(a) (III). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a) (III)(B).
Therefore claim 1 fails to include an additional feature or element that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B and is therefore not eligible under 101.
Similar observations are applied to the corresponding claims 9 and 10.
Claim 8 recites the parking region being extracted by using a feature object indicating a parking region included in the site extracted from an aerial image obtained by photographing the site from the sky, instead of the map information, as further referring to mental process of extracting, using the data gathered under insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is therefore not eligible under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed, deriving an accuracy of each of the candidates and estimating the parking region, following the extracted candidates, in claims 1 and 9, is not described in applicant’s specification. Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 10 fail written description requirements.
Claims 2-8 and 10 depend from a rejected base claim under written description and are thus rejected themselves.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-3, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200284588 A1 to Sundar et al (hereinafter ‘Sundar’).
Regarding claim 1, Sundar discloses a parking region extraction apparatus for extracting a parking region, which is a region for parking a vehicle in a site , the parking region extraction apparatus comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Para [0005], wherein a system for refining maps for vehicles, the system comprising: one or more processors in communication with a vehicle; wherein the one or more processors are configured to: . . . perform feature extraction on the image data to identify one or more parking spots; generate a refined map by revising the previously-generated map to include the one or more parking spots; store the refined map as the map data associated with the location data; and transmit the map data associated with the location data to the vehicle), the at least one processor being configured to: an acquisition unit (Fig. 4, Processor 404) configured to acquire map information including the site (Para [0018] and Fig. 2, depicts an exemplary method 200 of providing refined maps of parking areas to one or more vehicles, according to examples of this disclosure. . . . Next, in some embodiments, systems of the present invention can retrieve one or more previously-generated maps of the location (Step 202)); an extraction unit configured to extract candidates for the parking region (Para [0019 and Fig. 2, wherein next, the previously-generated map can be refined using feature extraction of the image data (Step 204). . . . FIG. 3 depicts an exemplary method 300 of refining maps (e.g., high definition (HD) maps) of parking areas (such as parking area 100) using feature extraction. The method can begin by retrieving a previously generated map and image data corresponding to a vehicle location.) by dividing the site using the map information (Para [0023, wherein in some examples, a set of templates for parking spots can be created. The template set can contain parking lot patches (e.g., portions of overhead images of parking spots) of different parking spot configurations, as dividing the site, at different orientations); and an estimation unit configured to derive an accuracy of each of the candidates and estimate the parking region (Para [0025], and Fig. 3, wherein next, parked cars and other physical boundaries can be identified (Step 304). Since parking lots can also contain parked cars, the same patch-based correlation method can be used to identify parked cars. A grouping strategy can use similar angles to identify parking rows and subsequently the neighboring parking rows to constitute a parking lot (Step 305). If the parking rows fall within a distance threshold, they are labeled as belonging to the same parking area, as accuracy derivation and estimation of parking rows as parking regions).
Regarding claim 2, Sundar discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire an aerial image obtained by photographing the site from the sky (Para [0018] and Fig. 2, wherein next, systems of the present invention can retrieve image data corresponding to the vehicle location (Step 203). The image data can include an image of a portion of the Earth's surface. This image could be a satellite image or an image captured by a drone, airplane, or the like.); and detect a vehicle included in the site using the aerial image (Para [0025], wherein next, parked cars and other physical boundaries can be identified (Step 304). Since parking lots can also contain parked cars, the same patch-based correlation method can be used to identify parked cars.), wherein the at least one processor derives the accuracy of each of the candidates and estimates the parking region using a detection result of detecting the vehicle (Para [0025], wherein grouping strategy can use similar angles to identify parking rows and subsequently the neighboring parking rows to constitute a parking lot (Step 305). If the parking rows fall within a distance threshold, they are labeled as belonging to the same parking area. In addition to recognizing parking areas, physical boundaries of parking areas such as walls or fences, pathways to access the parking spaces, and obstructions in the spaces can also be identified, inherently as accuracy derivation of the candidate extraction).
Regarding claim 3, Sundar discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire an aerial image obtained by photographing the site from the sky (Para [0018] and Fig. 2, wherein next, systems of the present invention can retrieve image data corresponding to the vehicle location (Step 203). The image data can include an image of a portion of the Earth's surface. This image could be a satellite image or an image captured by a drone, airplane, or the like.); and detect a feature object indicating a parking region included in the site by using the aerial image (Para [0025], wherein next, parked cars and other physical boundaries can be identified (Step 304). Since parking lots can also contain parked cars, the same patch-based correlation method can be used to identify parked cars.), wherein the at least one processor derives the accuracy of each of the candidates and estimates the parking region by using a detection result for the feature object (Para [0025], wherein grouping strategy can use similar angles to identify parking rows and subsequently the neighboring parking rows to constitute a parking lot (Step 305). If the parking rows fall within a distance threshold, they are labeled as belonging to the same parking area. In addition to recognizing parking areas, physical boundaries of parking areas such as walls or fences, pathways to access the parking spaces, and obstructions in the spaces can also be identified, inherently as accuracy derivation of the candidate extraction).
Regarding claim 6, Sundar discloses wherein the at least one processor derives the accuracy according to a parking situation of the vehicle as the detection result (Para [0017], wherein FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary parking area 100. As shown in FIG. 1, the exemplary parking area 100 may include groups of parking lines 101, vehicles 102 (e.g., parked inside parking lines 101), and signage 103 (e.g., disabled parking signs, electric vehicle signs, etc.). Methods of the present invention may use the parking lines 101, vehicles 102, and/or signs 103 to recognize parking lots, inherently as the situation of the vehicle i.e. for disabled, electric vehicle, etc., along with their physical boundaries such as walls or fences).
Regarding claim 8, Sundar discloses wherein the parking region is extracted by using a feature object indicating a parking region included in the site extracted from an aerial image obtained by photographing the site from the sky (Para [0018], wherein the image data can include an image of a portion of the Earth's surface. This image could be a satellite image or an image captured by a drone, airplane, or the like.), instead of the map information (Para [0019], wherein next, the previously generated map can be refined using feature extraction of the image data (Step 204).).
Regarding method claim 9, Please refer to the corresponding apparatus claim 1 for further teachings.
Regarding claim 10, Sundar discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a parking region extraction program for causing a computer to function as the parking region extraction apparatus according to claim 1 (Para [0033], wherein Each such computing device typically includes a processor (or multiple processors), such as processors 404 and 460 depicted in FIG. 4, that executes program instructions or modules stored in a memory or other non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or device (e.g., solid state storage devices, disk drives, etc.), such as storage 406).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundar in view of CN 109843676 B to Bae et al (hereinafter ‘Bae’) (Please refer to the attached USPTO translation version).
Regarding claim 4, Sundar does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire notification information indicating an accident involving a vehicle for which notification has been provided in the site, wherein the at least one processor derives the accuracy by using the notification information. Bae discloses acquire notification information indicating an accident involving a vehicle for which notification has been provided in the site, wherein the at least one processor derives the accuracy by using the notification information (Page 13, Para 5-6, wherein Next, the application part 450 may be based on a plurality of objects located on the periphery of the vehicle, such as other vehicles, driving line, road surface, identification card and so on, calculating the risk of the vehicle and so on, and it can calculate the possibility of collision with the front vehicle, whether the vehicle is slipping or not. In addition, the application part 450 can be based on the calculated risk, collision possibility or slip or so on, output to the user for prompting the information of the message and so on as the vehicle driving assistance information). Sundar and Bae are combinable because they both disclose parking area detection process. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the acquire notification information indicating an accident involving a vehicle for which notification has been provided in the site, of Bae’s apparatus with Sundar’s in order to control the posture or driving control of the vehicle (Page 13, Para 6).
Regarding claim 7, Sundar does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one processor derives the accuracy according to a state in which the vehicle is regularly parked as the parking situation. Bae discloses wherein the at least one processor derives the accuracy according to a state in which the vehicle is regularly parked as the parking situation (Page 16, Para 6, wherein the environment information of the vehicle peripheral area may further include by analyzing the object to detect the parking boundary, parking pattern of other vehicle, as the state of vehicle parked, parking line, . . .). Sundar and Bae are combinable because they both disclose parking area detection process. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the derive of the accuracy according to a state in which the vehicle is regularly parked as the parking situation, of Bae’s apparatus with Sundar’s in order to generate the virtual parking line VL alignment boundary line BL generated according to the determined parking mode (Page 20, Para 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundar in view of US 10,769,768 B1 to Lee.
Regarding claim 5, Sundar does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one processor: acquires a plurality of aerial images indicating time- series data, and derives at least one of the accuracy corresponding to change related to the time series data or the accuracy for each time series using the time series data. Lee discloses wherein the at least one processor: acquires a plurality of aerial images indicating time- series data, and derives at least one of the accuracy corresponding to change related to the time series data or the accuracy for each time series using the time series data (column 13, lines 57-65, wherein referring to FIG. 8, the time series analysis result provider 154 may detect a change in satellite images (i15-1, i15-2) or objects (o21-1, o21-2) over time. In detail, the time series analysis result provider 154 may receive, from the storage 140, a plurality of satellite images, for example, two satellite images (i15-1, i15-2), captured at different points in times with respect to the identical or an adjacent area (d22), and may detect a difference between the two satellite images (i15-1, i15-2), as deriving at least one the accuracy corresponding to change). Sundar and Lee are combinable because they both disclose parking area detection process. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the acquires a plurality of aerial images indicating time- series data, and derives at least one of the accuracy corresponding to change related to the time series data or the accuracy for each time series using the time series data, of Lee’s apparatus with Sundar’s in order to detect a change in objects over time (column 13, lines 57-59).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-12:00 PST.
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, Sue Lefkowitz can be reached at (571)272-3638. 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.
/SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights