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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the aforementioned Application filed October 29, 2024. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2024-0065878, filed May, 21, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 29, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-14 are directed to a system and method for generating maps based on a radar point cloud. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations displayed in bold below:
A driving map providing device, comprising:
a point obtainer obtaining a radar point cloud based on a radar signal radiated from a radar mounted to a vehicle and reflected by an object;
an updater updating a precise map received from a precise map server based on the radar point cloud;
a sub map generator generating a sub map corresponding to road information to a predetermined point based on the radar point cloud when unable to receive the precise map from the precise map server; and
a determiner determining a road where the vehicle is capable of autonomous driving based on the sub map.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. A user with access to radar data from a vehicle would be able to create a new map and update an existing a map for the vehicle based on said radar data. Additionally, the user would be able to look at the map and make a determination as to where the vehicle can and cannot go. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, additionally and/or alternatively represent mathematical relationships (i.e. configuring models and performing calculations) and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer or computing element does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
A driving map providing device, comprising:
a point obtainer obtaining a radar point cloud based on a radar signal radiated from a radar mounted to a vehicle and reflected by an object;
an updater updating a precise map received from a precise map server based on the radar point cloud;
a sub map generator generating a sub map corresponding to road information to a predetermined point based on the radar point cloud when unable to receive the precise map from the precise map server; and
a determiner determining a road where the vehicle is capable of autonomous driving based on the sub map.
The functions of the point obtainer, the updater, the sub map generator, and the determiner are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The characterization of the electronic controller as a driving map providing device, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of the point obtainer, the updater, the sub map generator, and the determiner amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the characterization of the driving map providing device, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 8 is comparable to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Examiner notes that in the limitation obtaining a radar point cloud based on a radar signal radiated from a radar mounted to a vehicle and reflected by an object could alternatively be interpreted as extra-solution data gathering (if the obtaining included active receipt from a sensor). The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The various metrics/variables/limitations of claims 2-7 and 9-14 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without recitation of any further additional elements. Therefore, tor the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The characterization of the sensor types in claim 7 amount to a particular field of use.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 20230324543; hereinafter Kulkarni), in view of Zhou et al. (US 20220164595; hereinafter Zhou), and further in view of Kroepfl et al. (US 20210063200; hereinafter Kroepfl).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kulkarni teaches
A driving map providing device, (Kulkarni: Abstract) comprising:
a point obtainer obtaining a radar point cloud based on a radar signal radiated from a radar mounted to a vehicle and reflected by an object; (Kulkarni: Paragraph [0029])
an updater updating a precise map received from a precise map server based on the radar point cloud; (Kulkarni: Paragraph [0043]-[0045], [0050], [0075])
...
Kulkarni does not teach generating a sub map nor determining whether a vehicle is capable of autonomous driving based on said sub map.
However in the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches
...
a sub map generator generating a sub map corresponding to road information to a predetermined point based on the radar point cloud when unable to receive the precise map from the precise map server; (Zhou: Paragraph [0072]-[0073], [0109]) and
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the driving map system of Kulkarni with the sub map generator of Zhou for the benefit of boosting performance of a vehicle localization system. (Zhou: Paragraph [0007])
Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, does not teach determining if a vehicle is capable of autonomous driving based on a sub map.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kroepfl teaches
...
a determiner determining a road where the vehicle is capable of autonomous driving based on the sub map. (Kroepfl: Paragraph [0005]; “In addition, because consumer vehicles may not be equipped with the same high quality, high cost sensors, localization to the HD maps—even when available—is not capable of being performed using many sensor modalities—e.g., cameras, LiDAR, RADAR, etc.—because the quality and type of data may not align with the data used to generate the HD map.”; see also [0132] analysis of road segments to determine accessibility of neighboring segments)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the driving map system of Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, with the road determination of Kroepfl for the benefit of achieving highly autonomous vehicles (e.g., Level 3, 4, and 5) autonomous vehicles that are safe and reliable. (Kroepfl: Paragraph [0005])
Regarding Claim 7,
Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, and further in view of Kroepfl, teaches
The driving map providing device of claim 1, wherein the sub map generator generates the sub map by receiving detection information from at least one sensor among a camera, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), and a global positioning system (GPS) mounted to the vehicle and further reflecting the detection information. (Kulkarni: Paragraph [0035]; Zhou: [0068])
The motivation to combine Kulkarni, Zhou, and Kroepfl, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is analogous to Claim 7 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 7.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, and further in view of Kroepfl, as applied to claims 1, 7-8, and 14, above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20250321321; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding Claim 2,
Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, and further in view of Kroepfl, teaches
The driving map providing device of claim 1,...
Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, and further in view of Kroepfl, does not teach the three-dimensional radar points including velocity information.
However in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches
...wherein the radar point corresponds to the object and includes three-dimensional (3D) coordinate information and velocity information, (Chen: Paragraph [0021]; “Each point in the radar point cloud is associated with various attributes, including its location in three-dimensional space (x, y, z), its doppler (velocity toward or away from the sensor), its RCS (intensity), and its time of arrival (t).”) and wherein the radar point cloud is obtained by clustering a plurality of radar points. (Chen: Paragraph [0021]; “The signal processing circuitry 130 is further constructed and arranged to generate a radar point cloud, i.e., a three-dimensional map in which individual points represent radar detections.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the driving map system of Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, and further in view of Kroepfl, with the three-dimensional coordinate information and the method for obtaining the radar point cloud of Chen for the benefit of an improved technique of identifying objects and/or object features based on radar signals. (Chen: Paragraph [0015])
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is analogous to Claim 2 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 2.
Claims 3-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, and further in view of Kroepfl, as applied to claims 1, 7-8, and 14, above, and further in view of Levinson et al. (US 9612123; hereinafter Levinson).
Regarding Claim 3,
Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, and further in view of Kroepfl, teaches
The driving map providing device of claim 1, wherein the object includes a static object including a road, a road surrounding structure, and a building,... (Kroepfl: Paragraph [0086], “The base conversion 506 may correspond to the landmarks—e.g., lane lines, road boundary lines, signs, poles, trees, other vertical structures or objects, crosswalks, etc.—as determined using perception via the DNN(s)”; [0100]; “the dotted segments 572A-572C and 572J-572K may correspond to lane lines and/or road boundaries and the dotted segments 572D-572I may correspond to poles, signs, and/or other static objects or structures.”)
Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, and further in view of Kroepfl, does not explicitly teach that the dynamic objects include a person and surrounding vehicle
However in the same field of endeavor, Levinson teaches
...and a dynamic object including a surrounding vehicle and a person. (Levinson: Column 10, Line 17-19)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the driving map system of Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, and further in view of Kroepfl, with the dynamic object identification of Levinson for the benefit of improving the ability of an autonomous vehicle to detect other drivers, vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. (Levinson: Column 2, Line 45-54)
Regarding Claim 4,
Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, further in view of Kroepfl, and even further in view of Levinson, teaches
The driving map providing device of claim 3, wherein the point obtainer generates at least one of a relative velocity vector map or a radar Doppler velocity vector map based on the radar point to differentiate the dynamic object and the static object. (Kulkarni: Paragraph [0053], [0064]; “...not all targets may be beneficial for generating radar signatures in form of maps (or any other form). It can be helpful, for instance, to include static targets while removing dynamic targets and ghost targets to be able to reproduce radar signatures whenever the vehicle goes through the same region another time.” [0066]; The bolded variables within the disclosure of Kulkarni all refer to vectors.)
Regarding Claim 5,
Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, further in view of Kroepfl, and even further in view of Levinson, teaches
The driving map providing device of claim 4, wherein the updater updates the precise map based on a point corresponding to the static object. (Kulkarni: Paragraph [0049]-[0051], [0071], [0075]-[0076])
Regarding Claim 6,
Kulkarni, in view of Zhou, further in view of Kroepfl, and even further in view of Levinson, teaches
The driving map providing device of claim 4, wherein the sub map generator generates the sub map based on a point corresponding to the static object. (Kulkarni: Paragraph [0051], Zhou [0042]-[0043])
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is analogous to Claim 3 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is analogous to Claim 4 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is analogous to Claim 5 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is analogous to Claim 6 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663