DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 2, 2024. Claims 1 – 15 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 1 recite a computer implemented method, and the body of the claim positively recites a series of method steps. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a process.
Does claim 13 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recite a computer system. The body of claim recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed system. Therefore, claim is directed to an apparatus.
Does claim 14 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recite a vehicle. The body of claim 14 recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed device/apparatus. Therefore, claim is directed to an apparatus
Does claim 15 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 15 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction for carrying out method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is directed to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1 – 14 recite a judicial exception? Yes. Claims 1 – 14 recite the limitations of
determining a plurality of predicted hypotheses, correcting the plurality of
predicted hypotheses to obtain predicted and corrected hypotheses, merging the predicted and corrected hypotheses to obtain merged hypotheses, pruning at least a portion of the merged hypotheses to obtain final hypotheses, disregarding hypotheses with a covariance above a pre-determined covariance threshold, merging at most two
predicted and corrected hypotheses, and adding at least one hypothesis to the final hypotheses at a location of at least one measurement of the measurements which is not covered by a hypothesis of the hypotheses (Claim 1);
disregarding hypotheses with a covariance above a pre-determined covariance threshold (Claim 2);
disregarding hypotheses with weights below a pre-determined weight threshold (Claim 3);
removing hypotheses so that the total number of hypotheses is below a pre-determined total number threshold (Claim 4);
merging two predicted and corrected hypotheses (Claim 5);
determining the two predicted and corrected hypotheses for each of the merged hypotheses based on a distance between the two predicted and corrected hypotheses (Claim 6);
adding one hypothesis to the final hypotheses (Claim 7);adding the hypothesis with a mean which is at least a predetermined distance
threshold apart from the respective means of the other hypotheses (Claim 8);
adding the hypothesis with a weight so that if a measurement occurs again at a location of the hypothesis, the weight is increased, and otherwise, the hypothesis is pruned (Claim 9);
providing a random finite set filter (Claim 10);
providing a Gaussian Mixture Probability Hypothesis Density filter (Claim 11); and
using the final hypotheses as the existing hypotheses for a subsequent iteration of the computer implemented method (Claim 12).
The determining, merging, pruning, disregarding, removing, adding, providing and using limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting or implying “a computing system” nothing in the claim precludes the determining, merging, pruning, disregarding, removing, adding, providing and using steps from practically being performed in the human mind/visually. For example, but for the “computing system” recitation or implication, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform the aforementioned steps. As a result, these limitations are considered mental processes. Alternatively, the determining, merging, pruning, disregarding, removing, adding, providing and using steps describe mathematical concepts and data analysis—often considered abstract—rather than a specific improvement in how the computer operates. Under the Alice/Mayo framework, the method, while involving computer hardware, appears to focus on conventional data manipulation rather than a technological improvement in computer functionality itself.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1 – 14 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The claims rely on "computer hardware components" without detailing a specialized, unconventional, or inventive hardware configuration. The steps constitute "computerizing activities" or mathematical manipulations that, if done without specialized hardware interaction, are considered mental or manual processes.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 14 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1 – 14 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 1 – 15 are ineligible.
As to claim 15, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The medium acts as a container for the method. Since the underlying method of claim 1 is deemed an "abstract idea" without providing a "significantly more" inventive concept, the medium simply acts as a container for that ineligible method. As such, claim 15 is considered ineligible as well.
Therefore, claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,472,444 B2 to Goeddel (herein after “Goeddel et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 13 – 15,
the Goeddel et al. publication discloses a computer implemented method for determining information of static occupancy (see Col. 13, lns 1 – 36 for determining information of static objects),
the method comprising the following steps carried out by computer hardware components (120)(see Cols. 5 – 8):
based on a plurality of existing hypotheses for the information of static occupancy, determining a plurality of predicted hypotheses (see Col. 5, ln 4 – Col.6, ln 65, where “the computing system can perform any or all of the processes involved in: perception, prediction, localization, planning, and/or any other processes involved in operation of the autonomous agent . . . The computing system (e.g., onboard computing system) preferably functions to control the autonomous agent and process sensed data from the sensor suite (e.g., a computer vision system, LIDAR, flash LIDAR, wheel speed sensors, GPS, etc.) of the autonomous agent and/or other sensors (e.g., from infrastructure devices) to determine states of the autonomous agent and/or states of agents in an operating environment of the autonomous agent . . .”)(Emphasis added);
based on measurements, correcting the plurality of predicted hypotheses to obtain predicted and corrected hypotheses (Updating/correction steps can be accomplished using sensor data to refine the hypothesis probabilities; see Col. 7, lns 28 – 35, where “[t]he computing system 120 can include a relabeling subsystem 124, which functions to evaluate and/or refine to the environmental representation (e.g., with a evaluating hypotheses for the environmental representation). Additionally or alternatively, the relabeling subsystem can function to update labels of an environmental representation to reduce (perceived) inaccuracies, such as according to an objective function and/or various optimization technique”; see also Col. 28 – 33, where “the environmental representation is updated in S230 as the agent obtains more information from the sensor system, which may clarify, confirm, and/or conflict with information (e.g., the set of labels, motion characteristics, etc.) associated with the objects in the agent's environments”)(Emphasis added);
merging the predicted and corrected hypotheses to obtain merged hypotheses (Fusion of multiple sensor data or particle filter can be used to obtain a merged hypotheses; see Col. 4, lns 43 – 46, where “variations of the technology can provide robust sensor fusion, since the preserved object state history can allow sensor fusion across multiple time intervals/update cycles”; see also Col. 18, lns 7 – 33, where scoring the hypothesis and the confidence thereof “can be determined based on . . . sensor information (e.g., sensor types, sensor fusion outputs, etc.) . . .”)(Emphasis added); and
pruning at least a portion of the merged hypotheses to obtain final hypotheses (see Col. 4, lns 18 – 34, where “variations of the technology can be adaptable to the time and/or resource requirements of an autonomous agent or autonomous vehicle (AV) application, such as by being customizable with respect to the amount of time and/or computing resources spent on dynamically updating the environmental representation. In specific examples, for instance, a number of iterations of updates and/or a level of computing performed in each update (e.g., number of computing subsystems employed in proposing a new set of labels) can be confined by any number of constraints. Moreover, variants can provide natural degradation of environmental awareness as computational complexity approaches the resource constraints, which can facilitate scalability of the system/method into increasingly complex environments and AV settings (e.g., without missing update intervals due to convergence failures, losing state history, etc.)”);
generating candidates for hypotheses to obtain final hypotheses (see Col. 20, lns 41 – 44 for initializing new hypotheses in prior environmental representation based on new inputs);
wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following:
during pruning, disregarding hypotheses with a covariance above a pre-
determined covariance threshold (see Col. 4, lns 18 – 34);
during merging, for each of the merged hypotheses, merging at most two
predicted and corrected hypotheses (see Col. 4, lns 43 – 46); or
after pruning, adding at least one hypothesis to the final hypotheses at a
location of at least one measurement of the measurements which is not covered by a hypothesis of the hypotheses (see Col. 20, lns 41 – 44 for initializing new hypotheses based on additional inputs).
As to claim 5,
the Goeddel et al. publication discloses that during merging, for each of the merged hypotheses, two predicted and corrected hypotheses are merged. (See Col. 4, lns 43 – 46.)
As to claim 7,
the Goeddel et al. publication discloses that after pruning, one hypothesis is added to the final hypotheses (See Col. 20, lns 41 – 44.)
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 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Goeddel et al. publication in view of CN 113269301 B to Rubin et al. (herein after “Li et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 10,
the Goeddel et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
providing a random finite set filter.
Random set filter are old and well-known for solving the problem of track identification, as demonstrated by the Li et al. publication. (See page 2.) Such disclosure suggests providing a random finite set filter to facilitate obtaining final hypotheses.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Goeddel et al. publication so as to provide a random finite set, as suggested by the Li et al. publication, in order to facilitate obtaining final hypotheses.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666