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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 23 April 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Figs. 8-9)” [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note]. 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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “a digital NORA map” appears to be an abbreviation that has not been defined in the claim. Examiner suggest defining the abbreviation of NORA in the first instance it appears in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “with the detected sensor data” should be “based on the detected sensor data. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 6, the recited limitation “if a no recording zone lies within the detection range” is indefinite. The limitation recites an if statement, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation it is not necessitated in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the limitation to recite “when a no recording lies within the detection range”. Further, in line 13 of claim 1 and line 10 of claim 6, the recited limitation “the recording of sensor data” is indefinite. there is insufficient antecedent abasis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 2, line 3, the recited limitation “a detection range” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the detection range recited previously or is a different detection range.
In claim 11 line 3, the recited limitation “the autonomous vehicle” is indefinite. there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, in lines 3-4, the recited limitation “a detection range” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the detection range recited previously or is a different detection range.
In claim 18 line 2, the recited limitation “the sensor data” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this referring to the detected sensor data or if this is different sensor data with insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Further in line 3, the recited limitation, “the autonomous vehicle” is indefinite. there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, in lines 3-4, the recited limitation “a detection range” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the detection range recited previously or is a different detection range.
Claims 3-4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite recognizing a number of nor recording zones for which a recording ban exists using a digital NORA map stored in the ego vehicle; determining whether at least one of the no recording zones lies within a detection range of at least one of the sensors; and determining an approved field of view on the NORA map for each sensor wherein the field defines which data maybe recorded at which location. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as sensor data of the environment, different zones of a roadway could recognize a number of nor recording zones for which a recording ban exists using a digital NORA map stored in the ego vehicle; determine whether at least one of the no recording zones lies within a detection range of at least one of the sensors; and determine an approved field of view on the NORA map for each sensor wherein the field defines which data maybe recorded at which location. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of detecting and recording sensor data of an environment during a trip; interrupting, if a no-recording zone lies within the detection range of at least one of the sensors, the recording of sensor data of the at least one sensor; an environment detection sensor system comprising a plurality of sensors and a digital NORA map. The detecting and recording steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (sensor data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The interrupting steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The plurality of sensors and a NORA digital mapare recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Accordingly, even 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.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the detecting/recording and interrupting steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-21 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the 1-4 and 6-21 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. 1 cc02 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 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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graefe et al (US 20210109538 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Graefe discloses a method for operating an ego vehicle (2), the method comprising: detecting and recording sensor data of an environment during a trip using an environment detecting sensor system comprising a plurality of sensors (see at least [0023-0029] and [0034-0036]); recognizing a number of no recording zones (NORA) for which a recording ban exists using a digital NORA map stored in the ego vehicle (see at least [0016], [0023-0029], and [0034-0036], “… a controller of the autonomous vehicle can recognize the area as restricted, such as from GPS and mapping information…”); determining whether at least one of the no recording zones lies within a detection range of at least one of the sensors (see at least [0023-0029] and [0034-0036]); and interrupting, if a no recording zone lies within the detection range of at least one of the sensors, the recording of sensor data of the at least one sensor (see at least [0023-0029] and [0034-0036]); determining an approved field of view in the NORA map for each sensor, wherein the field of view defines which data may be recorded at which location (see at least [0023-0029], [0031-0032], and [0034-0036]).
With respect to claim 2, Graefe discloses wherein when detecting that at least one no recording zone lies in a detection range of at least one of the sensors, the recording of sensor data of all sensors is interrupted (see at least [0023-0029] and [0034-0036]).
With respect to claim 4, Graefe discloses wherein the-no recording zones comprise military installations, power plants, and/or other security-sensitive locations (see at least [0011], [0018] and [0034-0036]).
With respect to claim 6, it is a directed to an ego vehicle claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 6 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 7, Graefe discloses wherein the ego vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or a semi-autonomous vehicle (See at least [0011], [0014-0018], and [0020-0027]).
With respect to claim 9, Graefe discloses wherein each respective sensor is selected from a group consisting of a camera; a LiDAR sensor; a radar sensor, and combinations thereof (see at least [0013], [0015], and [0020]).
With respect to claim 11, Graefe discloses controlling the ego vehicle with the detected sensor data, wherein the detected sensor data is used to control the autonomous vehicle regardless of the presence of at least one no recording zone within a detection range of at least one of the sensors (see at least [0012-0013], [0017], [0020-0026], [0029-0035], and [0049]).
With respect to claim 13, Graefe discloses the ego vehicle further comprising a behavior planning module (see at least [0012-0013], [0017], [0020-0026], [0029-0035], and [0049]), wherein the behavior planning module is configured to control an actuator system of the ego vehicle based on the detected sensor data (see at least [0012-0013], [0017], [0020-0026], [0029-0035], and [0049]).
With respect to claim 18, Graefe discloses controlling the ego vehicle with the detected sensor data, wherein the sensor data is used to control the autonomous vehicle regardless of the presence of the no recording zone within a detection range of at least one of the sensors (see at least [0012-0013], [0017], [0020-0026], [0029-0035], and [0049]).
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.
Claims 3, 12, 14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graefe et al (US 20210109538 A1) in view of Cui et al (US 20220171973 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Graefe do not specifically disclose wherein a detected environment of each sensor is defined by a frustum which extends up to the detection range.
Cui teaches wherein a detected environment of each sensor is defined by a frustum which extends up to the detection range (see at least [0018], [0034], [0036-0037], and [0042-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Graefe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Cui wherein a detected environment of each sensor is defined by a frustum which extends up to the detection range. This would be done so that privacy is ensured within the content produced by the video surveillance for entities who share the area (see Cui para 0013).
With respect to claim 12, Graefe do not specifically disclose updating the NORA map by connecting to a cloud.
Cui teaches updating the NORA map by connecting to a cloud (see at least [0031], [0035], and [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Graefe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Cui updating the NORA map by connecting to a cloud. This would be done so that privacy is ensured within the content produced by the video surveillance for entities who share the area (see Cui para 0013).
With respect to claim 14, Graefe do not specifically disclose wherein the ego vehicle further comprising a data recorder configured to store the recorded sensor data.
Cui teaches wherein the ego vehicle further comprising a data recorder configured to store the recorded sensor data (see at least [0004] and [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Graefe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Cui wherein the ego vehicle further comprising a data recorder configured to store the recorded sensor data. This would be done so that privacy is ensured within the content produced by the video surveillance for entities who share the area (see Cui para 0013).
With respect to claim 16, Graefe do not specifically disclose wherein a detected environment of each sensor is defined by a frustum which extends up to the detection range.
Cui teaches wherein a detected environment of each sensor is defined by a frustum which extends up to the detection range (see at least [0018], [0034], [0036-0037], and [0042-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Graefe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Cui wherein a detected environment of each sensor is defined by a frustum which extends up to the detection range. This would be done so that privacy is ensured within the content produced by the video surveillance for entities who share the area (see Cui para 0013).
With respect to claim 19, Graefe do not specifically disclose resuming recording of sensor data detected by the at least one sensor once the no recording zone no longer lies in the detection range of the at least one sensor.
Cui teaches resuming recording of sensor data detected by the at least one sensor once the no recording zone no longer lies in the detection range of the at least one sensor (see at least [0042-0043] and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Graefe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Cui of resuming recording of sensor data detected by the at least one sensor once the no recording zone no longer lies in the detection range of the at least one sensor. This would be done so that privacy is ensured within the content produced by the video surveillance for entities who share the area (see Cui para 0013).
With respect to claim 20, Graefe do not specifically disclose resuming recording of sensor data detected by all of the sensors once the no recording zone no longer lies in the detection range of the at least one sensor.
Cui teaches resuming recording of sensor data detected by all of the sensors once the no recording zone no longer lies in the detection range of the at least one sensor (see at least [0042-0043] and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Graefe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Cui of resuming recording of sensor data detected by all of the sensors once the no recording zone no longer lies in the detection range of the at least one sensor. This would be done so that privacy is ensured within the content produced by the video surveillance for entities who share the area (see Cui para 0013).
Claims 8, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graefe et al (US 20210109538 A1) in view of Hahn Seong (KR 20160008448 A).
With respect to claim 8, Graefe do not specifically disclose wherein the ego vehicle is configured to form a dynamic no recording zone as a moving object which is detected by at least one of the sensors based on external features.
Hahn teaches wherein the ego vehicle is configured to form a dynamic no recording zone as a moving object which is detected by at least one of the sensors based on external features (see at least [0008] and [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Graefe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Hahn wherein the ego vehicle is configured to form a dynamic no recording zone as a moving object which is detected by at least one of the sensors based on external features. This would be done to secure privacy of personals (see Hahn abstract).
With respect to claim 10, Graefe do not specifically disclose forming a dynamic no recording zone as a moving object which is detected by at least one of the sensors based on external features.
Hahn teaches forming a dynamic no recording zone as a moving object which is detected by at least one of the sensors based on external features (see at least [0008] and [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Graefe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Hahn of forming a dynamic no recording zone as a moving object which is detected by at least one of the sensors based on external features. This would be done to secure privacy of personals (see Hahn abstract).
With respect to claim 15, Graefe discloses wherein when detecting that the dynamic no recording zone lies in the detection range of the at least one of the sensors, recording of sensor data of all sensors is interrupted (see at least [0023-0029] and [0034-0036]).
With respect to claim 17, Graefe discloses wherein the dynamic no recording zones comprise aircraft and vehicles as well as vehicle convoys with specially protected occupants (see at least [0011] and [0018], Graefe discloses in which a dynamic no recording zones include aircrafts and or vehicles (i.e., military bases/facilities). It is an obvious variation that military bases include aircrafts and convoy vehicles.).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graefe et al (US 20210109538 A1) in view of Cui et al (US 20220171973 A1) in view of Hahn Seong (KR 20160008448 A).
With respect to claim 21, Graefe do not specifically disclose resuming recording of sensor data detected by the at least one sensor once the dynamic no recording zone no longer lies in the detection range of the at least one sensor.
Cui teaches resuming recording of sensor data detected by the at least one sensor once the dynamic no recording zone no longer lies in the detection range of the at least one sensor (see at least [0042-0043] and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Graefe, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Cui of resuming recording of sensor data detected by all of the sensors once the no recording zone no longer lies in the detection range of the at least one sensor. This would be done so that privacy is ensured within the content produced by the video surveillance for entities who share the area (see Cui para 0013).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights