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 .
Effective Filing Date
The effective filing date is tied to the divisional 17/345,203 filed on 06/11/2021. The current claim limitations meet this effective filing date, however, any further amendments will have to be evaluated.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 12/17/2024 has been fully considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 304. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
*Note: 304 is in the specification but not in the drawings. The representative vehicle is labeled in the drawings, however, it does not have the associated number.
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.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, nor is the abstract idea as a judicial exception integrated into a practical application. With regards to step 1, the claimed invention is directed to a method.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
For step 2A, prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed under MPEP 2106.04 to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for generating a master data set representing a set of vehicle models for vehicle sensor performance validation, the method comprising:
determining a set of sensor locations associated with the set of vehicle models;
determining a field of view for each of the set of sensor locations in a reference coordinate system associated with a representative vehicle selected from the set of vehicle models to provide a set of sensor fields of view;
determining a collective field of view for the set of sensor locations in the reference coordinate system from the set of sensor fields of view;
and equipping the representative vehicle with a set of sensors, the set of sensors being positioned such that the fields of view associated with the set of sensors, once combined, encompass the determined collective field of view;
driving the representative vehicle for a distance required for validation of a sensor system to provide the master data set, such that the master data set contains data representing the entire distance required for validation across the determined collective field of view;
and storing the master data set on a non-transitory computer readable medium.
These limitations, as drafted, are a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106.04(d), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application.”
In the present case, the additional elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A method for generating a master data set representing a set of vehicle models for vehicle sensor performance validation, the method comprising:
determining a set of sensor locations associated with the set of vehicle models;
determining a field of view for each of the set of sensor locations in a reference coordinate system associated with a representative vehicle selected from the set of vehicle models to provide a set of sensor fields of view;
determining a collective field of view for the set of sensor locations in the reference coordinate system from the set of sensor fields of view;
and equipping the representative vehicle with a set of sensors, the set of sensors being positioned such that the fields of view associated with the set of sensors, once combined, encompass the determined collective field of view;
driving the representative vehicle for a distance required for validation of a sensor system to provide the master data set, such that the master data set contains data representing the entire distance required for validation across the determined collective field of view;
and storing the master data set on a non-transitory computer readable medium.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “for vehicle sensor performance validation”. This additional element is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “A method for generating a master data set representing a set of vehicle models,” “the method comprising” and “and equipping the representative vehicle with a set of sensors, the set of sensors being positioned such that the fields of view associated with the set of sensors, once combined, encompass the determined collective field of view” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solutionary).
Regarding the additional element of “such that the master data set contains data representing the entire distance required for validation across the determined collective field of view” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solutionary).
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the MPEP 2106.05, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, regardless of whether they are looked at individually or in combination.
As discussed above, the additional elements of “A method for generating a master data set representing a set of vehicle models,” “the method comprising,” “and equipping the representative vehicle with a set of sensors, the set of sensors being positioned such that the fields of view associated with the set of sensors, once combined, encompass the determined collective field of view” and “such that the master data set contains data representing the entire distance required for validation across the determined collective field of view” each amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (see below). And a conclusion that additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. These particular additional limitations are each undeniably well-understood, routine, and conventional activities already known in the art. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v.Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, and/or merely the outputting of data in a similar manner, are well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 – 9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or also contain well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Remove substantially from the claims.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Berkooz (US Pub No: 2021/0018589 A1, hereinafter Berkooz).
Regarding Claim 1:
Berkooz discloses:
A method for generating a master data set representing a set of vehicle models for vehicle sensor performance validation, the method comprising: determining a set of sensor locations associated with the set of vehicle models. Paragraph [0021] describes a vehicle outfitted with sensors intended to mimic the performance of sensors from an already validated vehicle.
determining a field of view for each of the set of sensor locations in a reference coordinate system associated with a representative vehicle selected from the set of vehicle models to provide a set of sensor fields of view. Paragraph [0031] and figure 4 describes a digital image processor 404 adjusts a field of view of each sensor 402 to match a field of view of the corresponding sensor.
determining a collective field of view for the set of sensor locations in the reference coordinate system from the set of sensor fields of view;
and equipping the representative vehicle with a set of sensors, the set of sensors being positioned such that the fields of view associated with the set of sensors, once combined, encompass the determined collective field of view. Paragraph [0031] and figure 4 describes that the new sensor system can have a smaller field of view compared to the master system. This means that the set of sensors have a collective field of view of the surrounding vehicle.
driving the representative vehicle for a distance required for validation of a sensor system to provide the master data set, such that the master data set contains data representing the entire distance required for validation across the determined collective field of view. Paragraph [0035] describes a validation process in which a vehicle is driven for a required distance. Paragraph [0031] describes adjusting a field of view of each sensor and therefore the collective field of view.
and storing the master data set on a non-transitory computer readable medium. Paragraph [0026] describes validation data that can be stored in a non-transitory memory.
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.
Claim(s) 5 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkooz in view of Meng et al. (US Pub No: 2021/0239812 A1, hereinafter Meng).
Regarding Claim 5:
Berkooz discloses the above limitations in claim 1. Berkooz does not disclose an output of each sensor being synchronized.
Meng, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a common initialization signal to each sensor of the set of sensors, such that the outputs of the set of sensors are substantially synchronized. Paragraph [0024] describes sensor data captured by the two sensors are synchronized.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Berkooz to incorporate the teachings of Meng to show an output of each sensor being synchronized. One would have been motivated to do so that the latency associated with communication between sensors and a centralized controller and/or between the sensors themselves (Abstract of Berkooz).
Regarding Claim 6:
Meng teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising driving the representative vehicle for the distance required for validation of a sensor system to provide the master data set further comprises collecting vehicle metadata via a vehicle bus representing at least one of a steering angle, a GPS location, vehicle speed, headlamp status, wiper status, or turn signal status of the representative vehicle. Paragraph [0021] describes GPS receives onboard a vehicle.
The reason to combine Meng with Berkooz is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
Berkooz discloses:
The method of claim 6, further comprising: training a machine learning model on the set of master data and the vehicle metadata to provide a transform function that can be applied to the set of master data to provide data representing a field of view associated with any of the set of sensor locations. Paragraph [0024] describes a validation data generator 130 that can include a machine learning model 132 that is trained on the data captured at the new sensor system 111 and the replica sensor system 120.
Regarding Claim 8:
Berkooz discloses:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: receiving a sensor location of the set of sensor locations associated with a new sensor system; applying the transform function to the master data to produce a set of transformed validation data associated with the received sensor location; and predicting an output of the new sensor system with the set of transformed validation data. Paragraph [0021] describes data from the new sensor and the replica sensors from the new vehicle creates transformation that can transform previously collected sensor outputs to be viewed by the new sensors.
*Note claims 2 – 4 and 9 are not rejected under prior art. Claim 4 has two references that contain the limitations, however they miss the priority date. These references include US 20230419649 and US A1 20230286522 A1.
*Claim 9 overcomes the prior art because of this limitation: “comparing the second set of validation data to the validation data associated with the received sensor location to provide an error value; and validating the new sensor system with the set of transformed validation data only if the error value meets a threshold value.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayes (US Pub No: 2021/0394795 A1): Modifying settings of autonomous vehicle sensors based on predicted environmental states, including: determining, based on sensor data, that a predicted environmental state of the autonomous vehicle is associated with a sensory input outside an operating range of a sensor; determining a modified operating range of the sensor; and modifying one or more sensors to operate according to the modified operating range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658