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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 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.
1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 11 and 16 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 11 and 16 fall within one of the statutory categories? Claims 1 and 16 are directed towards a system, and claim 11 is directed towards a method. And as such fall within one of the statutory categories
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claims 1, 11 and 16 are directed to mental processes.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
NOTE: Method of claim 11 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 1, hence examiner will assess claim 11.
The method of claim 11 contains a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The claim is directed towards controlling at least one operation of an ego machine. In view of paragraph [0055] of disclosure filed on 12/19/2024, performing operation is planning. Hence examiner interprets a route or desired control of a vehicle is planned. Given road condition(s) a human (driver or passenger) can mentally plan an action of a vehicle e.g., soft braking, hard braking, steering left/right, accelerating etc..
Therefore, limitation of “controlling one or more operations of the ego-machine based at least on the ground disparity field” is a mental process, hence an abstract idea.
Similarly, “control,
Additionally, in all the claims “processing a representation of stereo image data corresponding to the simulated environment using a nonlinear hierarchical optimization” is executing a mathematical algorithm. Hence an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
The steps of, ”generating a ground disparity field representing estimated disparity values of a ground surface in an environment of an ego-machine based at least on processing a representation of stereo image data corresponding to the environment using a nonlinear hierarchical optimization” are performed by a processor i.e., a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, “one or more processors to control, within a simulation rendered using one or more light transport simulation algorithms, one or more operations of an ego-machine in a simulated environment based at least on a ground disparity field representing estimated disparity values of a ground surface in the simulated environment, the ground disparity field generated based at least on processing a representation of stereo image data corresponding to the simulated environment using a nonlinear hierarchical optimization”, in claim 16 indicates that it is performed by a processor. Hence is also apply it.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Limitations identified as “apply it” in step 2A qualify as apply it in step 2B as well.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 11 and 16 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1, 11 and 16 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 2, 12 and 19, generate the ground disparity field based at least on one or more weights that encourage the nonlinear hierarchical optimization to converge to smaller disparities being the mathematical algorithm, is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, “generate the surface disparity field using one or more weights that emphasize disparity values based at least on proximity to an estimated trajectory of the ego-machine” being a mathematical algorithm, is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 4 and 14, the claims further limit generating the ground disparity field. Therefore, is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 5, the claim further limits generating the surface disparity field. Hence is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 6, the claim further limits generating the surface disparity field. Hence is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 7, the claim further limits generating the surface disparity field. Hence is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 8, generate the surface disparity field based at least on a measurement deviation weight further limits the algorithm, hence is still directed towards an abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 9, the claim further limits generating the surface disparity field. Hence is still part of the abstract idea and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claims 10 and 15, the claims further limit the processor. This is still part of apply and does not amount to a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 17, the claim further limits how a simulation is generated. This is still part of abstract idea, or at most apply it. Therefore is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 18, the claim further limits how the simulation is generated. This is merely apply it and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 20, the claim further limits how a processor is implemented. This is still part of apply it and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
State of Prior Art
No art was found was found to teach all the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 16, specifically:
For claim 1 and 11:
generate a surface disparity field representing estimated disparity values of a surface in an environment of an ego-machine based at least on processing a representation of stereo image data corresponding to the environment using a nonlinear hierarchical optimization
For claim 16:
ground disparity field generated based at least on processing a representation of stereo image data corresponding to the simulated environment using a nonlinear hierarchical optimization
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marc (US 20250294656) teaches of controlling ego vehicle based on road surface. See [0036].
Anderson (US 20170137023) teaches of controlling actuators of vehicle based on road surface data. See[0008-0009].
Xi (US 20170297564) teaches of measuring road condition and controlling suspension of vehicle. See [0004], [0017].
Cho (US 20190001965) teaches of recognizing road surface disparity and controlling suspension of vehicle. See [0004], [0036].
None of the references above teach “generate a surface disparity field representing estimated disparity values of a surface in an environment of an ego-machine based at least on processing a representation of stereo image data corresponding to the environment using a nonlinear hierarchical optimization” or provide motivation for modification. Therefore, modification of the references above to teach the claimed invention would be improper hindsight.
Although, no prior art rejection is presented to claims 1-19, the claims are not in condition for allowance due to ineligibility under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656