DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 01/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0046] recites “…on the first reference line based on a position closest to the center point among in-region detection points (“C” to “E” surrounded by circles)” (emphasis added). It is unclear which figure (if any) or portion of the disclosure that this statement is referring to especially since this is not found in any of the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show L101, L102, L103, a “hatched region” and a “star mark” as described in [0046] in the specification. More specifically, [0046] states that L101 (i.e., first reference line), L102 (i.e., a boundary line L102), L103 (i.e., another boundary line L103), a “hatched region”, and a “star mark” are depicted in FIG. 6, however these details are missing from FIG. 6.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, 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: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 6 is directed to an object position normalization method. Therefore, claim 6 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 6 recites:
An object position normalization method executed by a free space detection device that arranges free space end points, which are determined based on detection points of objects detected around a predetermined center point, on a plurality of reference lines radially extending from the center point, and that extracts an outer edge of a free space by connecting the free space end points on the plurality of reference lines [mental process/step], the object position normalization method comprising:
when a boundary line between the reference lines adjacent to each other is set, one of the reference lines is referred to as a first reference line, two of the boundary lines sandwiching the first reference line are referred to as first boundary lines, and a region sandwiched between the first boundary lines with the first reference line being a center is referred to as a first angle region [mental process/step],
determining a position of the free space end point on the first reference line based on a position closest to the center point among in-region detection points which are the detection points present in the first angle region [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “arranges free space end points, which are determined based on detection points of objects detected around a predetermined center point…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e., detection points of objects detected around a predetermined center point) and forming a simple judgement. Also, “when a boundary line between the reference lines adjacent to each other is set, one of the reference lines is referred to as a first reference line, two of the boundary lines sandwiching the first reference line are referred to as first boundary lines…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Lastly, “determining a position of the free space end point…” in the context of this claim also encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The examiner notes that performing the limitations such as referring to one of the reference lines as a first reference line could reasonable be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper by labelling lines etc. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
An object position normalization method executed by a free space detection device [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] that arranges free space end points, which are determined based on detection points of objects detected around a predetermined center point, on a plurality of reference lines radially extending from the center point, and that extracts an outer edge of a free space by connecting the free space end points on the plurality of reference lines [mental process/step], the object position normalization method comprising:
when a boundary line between the reference lines adjacent to each other is set, one of the reference lines is referred to as a first reference line, two of the boundary lines sandwiching the first reference line are referred to as first boundary lines, and a region sandwiched between the first boundary lines with the first reference line being a center is referred to as a first angle region [mental process/step],
determining a position of the free space end point on the first reference line based on a position closest to the center point among in-region detection points which are the detection points present in the first angle region [mental process/step].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the method being “executed by a free space detection device” the examiner submits that the free space detection device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a free space detection device to perform the method amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity since the specification describes using radar sensors, camera sensors, and a common bus which are commonly used in the art of vehicle controls. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 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 well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 6. Independent claim 1 is analogous to independent claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-6 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilja et al. "Lilja" (US 2021/0333380 A1) in view of Oguro et al. "Oguro" (US 2020/0031342 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 6, Lilja teaches
A free space detection device that arranges free space end points see at least the abstract, FIG. 1, and [0042] where a computer implemented method is provided for determining a collision free space in front of a host vehicle based on objects detected by a detection system 13, which are determined based on detection points of objects detected around a predetermined center point [on] a plurality of reference lines radially extending from the center point, and that extracts an outer edge of a free space by connecting the free space end points [on] the plurality of reference lines see at least FIG. 1 and [0043]-[0045] where detection system 13 is configured to detect a plurality of limiting points 15 (i.e., detection points) in front of the host vehicle 11 wherein coordinates of the limiting points 15 are defined with respect to a polar coordinate system. The collision free space 25 may be represented via triangles wherein each triangle comprises a basis extending through a respective limiting point 15 and two line segments 19 (i.e., plurality of reference lines) extending from the basis of the triangle to the origin 20 (i.e., predetermined center point) of the vehicle coordinate system 17. The collision free space may be represented by connecting the limiting points 15 via respective straight lines 21 in order to provide a polygon 23 extending through all limiting points 15 and through the origin of the vehicle coordinate system 17.
The examiner notes that [brackets] have been added around claim limitations not expressly disclosed by Lilja. More specifically, Lilja does not teach that the detection points are plotted directly on the reference lines; rather, the detection points of FIG. 1 are plotted in between two respective reference lines. However, this is remedied by Ogura and a detailed explanation is provided below.
wherein a boundary line is set between the reference lines adjacent to each other see at least FIG. 1 where each triangle is connected to an adjacent triangle via a boundary line; and
when one of the reference lines is referred to as a first reference line, two of the boundary lines sandwiching the first reference line are referred to as first boundary lines, and [a region sandwiched between the first boundary lines with the first reference line being a center is referred to as a first angle region] see at least FIG. 1, [0042]-[0044] and [0058]-[0059] where each triangle is adjacent to one another and coordinates of the limiting points 15 are defined with respect to a polar coordinate. The polar coordinates represent the range and the angle for the next obstacles in front of the host vehicle 11. Each triangle include the same angle between the respective line segments 19 ending at the origin 20 of the vehicle coordinate system 17. Further, see at least FIG. 1 where each triangle is connected to an adjacent triangle via boundary lines and also see at least FIG. 4 where a first reference line (e.g., the triangle comprising a detection point 15) is sandwiched between boundary lines 63,
Lilja teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except Lilja does not teach that the detection points are plotted directly on the plurality of reference lines and, further, Lilja does not expressly disclose that a position of the free space end point on the first reference line is determined based on a position closest to the center point among in-region detection points which are the detection points present in the first angle region nor does Lilja disclose that a region sandwiched between the first boundary lines with the first reference line being a center is referred to as a first angle region.
Although the FIG. 1 of Lilja does not show that the detection points are plotted directly on a plurality of reference lines (rather, the detection points of FIG. 1 are plotted in between two respective reference lines), Oguro teaches that it is known to provide the free space detection system wherein detection points are plotted directly on a plurality of reference lines. See at least FIG. 12 where object detection points D1, D9, E1 and E4 are plotted directly on reference lines 132, 131, 134 and 133, respectively.
Oguro further teaches that it is known to provide the concept wherein a position of the free space end point on the first reference line is determined based on a position closest to the center point among in-region detection points which are the detection points present in the first angle region. See at least FIG.’s 8 & 12 and [0086]-[0090] where object D1 is located on a first reference line at a predetermined angle interval (∆θ) with respect to an angular direction centered at the detection reference position 106. Among the objects D1-D9 belonging to the unified group 118, the object D1 located at the smallest angle, the object D9 located at the largest angle, and the object D5 located at an intermediate position between the objects D1 and D9 are extracted as representative objects.
Oguro also teaches a region sandwiched between the first boundary lines with the first reference line being a center is referred to as a first angle region. See at least FIG.’s 8 & 9 and [0087]-[0090] where object D5 is located on a reference line. The reference line is sandwiched between two boundary lines (the two boundary lines are emphasized in FIG. 9 provided below)
PNG
media_image1.png
772
1132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lilja to incorporate the teachings of Oguro and provide the detection points are plotted directly on the plurality of reference lines. In doing so, it enables the extraction of all representative objects detected in the vicinity of the vehicle which include objects detected at all predetermined angle intervals with respect to the angular direction centered at the position of the vehicle 100 and determine at least two vertices to form a polygon from the positions of the representative objects [0090].
Regarding claim 2, Lilja in view of Oguro teaches
The free space detection device according to claim 1, wherein the position of the free space end point on the first reference line is determined based on a position closest to the center point among positions of the in-region detection points and a position of an intersection point where the first boundary line intersects a straight line connecting the in-region detection point and the detection point not included in the first angle region see at least Oguro FIG. 8 and [0087]-[0095] where object D5 is positioned on a reference line closest to the center point delta theta and the left boundary line (i.e., first boundary line) intersects a reference line (i.e., straight line) which connects the in-region detection point (i.e., object D5) and a detection point not included in the first angle region (i.e., object D1) .
PNG
media_image1.png
772
1132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Lilja in view of Oguro teaches
The free space detection device according to claim 2, wherein when the detection point is not present in the first angle region, the free space end point is set based on a position of the intersection point with a line connecting a pair of the detection points present on both sides of the first angle region see at least Lilja FIG. 1 where the collision free space in front of the host vehicle 11 may be represented by connecting the limiting points 15 via respective straight lines 21 in order to provide a polygon 23 extending through all limiting points 15 and through the origin 20 of the vehicle coordinate system 17. Further, see at least Oguro [0017] where, when a plurality of vertices of the polygon are present on the circle centered at the position of the representative object corresponding to the extreme end in the angular direction (i.e., detection point is not present in the first angle region such as object D1) and [0127]-[0130] where the unified object forming unit 84 may interpolate between the two vertices Vd1 and Vd2 along the arc with regard to the representative object D1 and add polygon vertices Vd8, Vd9.
Regarding claim 4, Lilja in view of Oguro teaches
The free space detection device according to claim 1, further comprising:
an end point attribute assignment unit configured to set an attribute for the free space end point based on a detection state of the object see at least Oguro [0088] where objects E1 -E4 belong to unified group 120 and objects E1 and E4 located at the largest angle in the positive direction are extracted as representative objects. Further, see at least [0094] where object E3 located relatively close to the vehicle 100 may be extracted as a representative object and determine at least one vertex to form a polygon from the position of the representative object.
Regarding claim 5, Lilja in view of Oguro teaches
The free space detection device according to claim 4, further comprising:
a line attribute assignment unit configured to assign an attribute to a line connecting the free space end points based on the attribute assigned to the free space end points see at least Oguro [0088] where objects E1 -E4 belong to unified group 120 and objects E1 and E4 located at the largest angle in the positive direction are extracted as representative objects. Further, see at least Oguro [0094]-[0096] where some portions of the boundary 136, 138 of each polygon (FIG. 12) are determined based on the positions of the extracted representative objects.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steyer et al. (US 2021/0394761 A1) discloses a method and processing unit for determining information with respect to an object in an environment of a vehicle.
Zhang et al. (US 2025/0139956 A1) discloses a free space estimator for autonomous movement.
Niesen et al. (US 11,276,189 B2) discloses radar-aided single image three-dimensional depth reconstruction.
Ichinose et al. (US 2021/0141079 A1) discloses an object detection device for a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brittany Renee Peko whose telephone number is (408)918-7506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:30 PT.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/B.R.P./06/23/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights