DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Image processing to determine probability of obstacles for autonomous driving.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-12 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-12 recites at least one step or instruction for image processing, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The method is drawn to understanding images by highlighting certain parts of the image. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-12 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites (I typically bolded additional elements and underlined abstract ideas) (additional element);
A vehicle control device, comprising: an input image acquirer configured to acquire, as an input image, an image captured by a camera directed forward as viewed from a host vehicle; a travel potential field generator configured to generate a travel potential field indicating a distribution of travel potential with respect to a future travel position of the host vehicle, based on the input image; a target trajectory generator configured to generate a target trajectory of the host vehicle, based on a gradient of the travel potential in the travel potential field; and a travel controller configured to operate a steering mechanism, based on the target trajectory, wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to execute the processing of: extracting, from the input image, reference object information regarding a position of a reference object or a boundary of the reference object; setting a low-potential point at a position within a central region of the input image, the position being determined based on the reference object information; identifying, in the input image, a position of an obstacle that obstructs safe travel of the host vehicle; setting a first high-potential point in a region of the input image where the obstacle appears; setting a value of the travel potential at the low- potential point to a first set value; setting a value of the travel potential at the first high- potential point to a second set value greater than the first set value; and generating the travel potential field by interpolating the value of the travel potential, in a region between the low- potential point and the first high-potential point in the input image, using a value between the first set value and the second set value.
Observations and judgment, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG). Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-10 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 11, 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-10) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 11, 12), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a vehicle, a camera and a control device as recited in independent Claim 1, 11, 12 and its dependent claims; as recited in independent Claim 1, 11, 12 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 11, 12 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11, 12 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., _control device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 11, 12 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 11, 12 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-12 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a vehicle, a camera and a control unit as recited in independent Claim 1, 11, 12 and its dependent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, ¶36 of the applicants specification details that the control device is a computer with a processor and memory.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term control device is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the control device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-12 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses, systems and methods of Claims 1-12 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-12 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 11, 12 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-12 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-12 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-12 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0383473).
Regarding claim 1, 11 and 12, Kim discloses 1. A vehicle control device, comprising:
an input image acquirer configured to acquire, as an input image, an image captured by a camera (¶59) directed forward as viewed from a host vehicle (s710);
a travel potential field generator configured to generate a travel potential field indicating a distribution of travel potential with respect to a future travel position of the host vehicle, based on the input image (s730);
a target trajectory generator configured to generate a target trajectory of the host vehicle, based on a gradient of the travel potential in the travel potential field (612 and 614 are trajectories of the host vehicle); and
a travel controller (100 is for the processing of an autonomous vehicle) configured to operate a steering mechanism, based on the target trajectory, wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to execute the processing of:
extracting, from the input image, reference object information regarding a position of a reference object or a boundary of the reference object (identifies 620);
setting a low-potential point at a position within a central region of the input image, the position being determined based on the reference object information (¶56 discloses assigning probability to the predictions);
identifying, in the input image, a position of an obstacle that obstructs safe travel of the host vehicle (fig. 6 shows possible collision points determined by 126);
setting a first high-potential point in a region of the input image where the obstacle appears; setting a value of the travel potential at the low-potential point to a first set value; setting a value of the travel potential at the first high-potential point to a second set value greater than the first set value; and generating the travel potential field by interpolating the value of the travel potential, in a region between the low- potential point and the first high-potential point in the input image, using a value between the first set value and the second set value (construed as the assigned probability that each path is given).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0383473) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Yamada (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0092239).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Kim does not disclose wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to: acquire, as the reference object information, a position of a fitting line of a left-sky boundary line, and a position of a fitting line of a right-sky boundary line, in the input image; and set the low-potential point at an intersection point of the fitting line of the left-sky boundary line and the fitting line of the right-sky boundary line, in a case where the intersection point exists within the central region.
Yamada, which deals in image identification, teaches wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to: acquire, as the reference object information, a position of a fitting line of a left-sky boundary line, and a position of a fitting line of a right-sky boundary line, in the input image; and set the low-potential point at an intersection point of the fitting line of the left-sky boundary line and the fitting line of the right-sky boundary line, in a case where the intersection point exists within the central region (¶ 47 and ¶53 discloses identifying the boundary, 922, between the sky and the road. Further analysis is shown in fig. 6b which is done to highlight distinctive features in the image with appropriate luminescence).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kim with the boundary lines of Yamada because this provides for good image analysis (abstract).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Yamada discloses wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to:
acquire, as the reference object information, a position of a fitting line of a left-road boundary line, and a position of a fitting line of a right-road boundary line, in the input image; and set the low-potential point at an intersection point of the fitting line of the left-road boundary line and the fitting line of the right-road boundary line, in a case where the intersection point exists within the central region (the intersection of the right and left in the image is in the central region at 922).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, Yamada discloses wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to:
acquire, as the reference object information, a position of a road boundary line in the input image; and set the low-potential point at a topmost point of the road boundary line in the input image, in a case where the topmost point exists within the central region (Yamada shows boundaries have low points of interest in fig. 6b).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 1, Yamada discloses wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to:
acquire, as reference object information, a position of a left-sky fitting line of a left-sky boundary line in the input image, a position of a right-sky fitting line of a right-sky boundary line in the input image, a position of a left-road fitting line of a left-road boundary line in the input image, a position of a right-road fitting line of a right-road boundary line in the input image, and a position of a road boundary line in the input image; and set the low-potential point at a position determined based on two or more points that exist within the central region, the points including: an intersection point of the left-sky fitting line and the right-sky fitting line, an intersection point of the left-road fitting line and the right-road fitting line, and a topmost point of the road boundary line in the input image (fig. 6b shows the boundaries of roads and sky and identifies their boundaries even in the central region).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Kim discloses wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to: acquire, as the reference object information, a position of a preceding vehicle in the input image, in a case where the preceding vehicle is recognized as a tracking target within the central region (Kim discloses in s710 detecting objects on the road which includes more than one).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 1, Yamada discloses wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to: acquire, as the reference object information, a position of a road boundary line or a position of a preceding vehicle recognized as a tracking target, in a case where the host vehicle is traveling on a road where the sky is blocked by an overhead structure (vehicles and road identification is not dependent on sky identification).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 1, Yamada discloses wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to: set the value of the travel potential such that a gradient becomes steeper as approaching the low-potential point within a low-potential range centered on the low-potential point; set the value of the travel potential such that a gradient becomes steeper as approaching the first high-potential point within a first high-potential range centered on the first high-potential point; and set the value of the travel potential such that a gradient outside the low-potential range and the first high-potential range is constant and more gradual than inside the low- potential range and the first high-potential range (construed as being shown in fig. 6b).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 1, Yamada discloses wherein the travel potential field generator is configured to further execute the processing of: identifying a position of a lane marking (911, 912) of the host vehicle in the input image; setting a second high-potential point in a region of the input image where the lane marking appears; setting a value of the travel potential at the second high-potential point to a third set value greater than the first set value (fig. 6b).
Where Yamada is silent to the values being set by generating the travel potential field by interpolating a value of the travel potential, in a region between the low- potential point and the second high-potential point in the input image, using a value between the first set value and the third set value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an in between value for this particular point in the image, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 9, Yamada discloses wherein the travel potential field generator is configured not to set the second high-potential point in a case where the host vehicle is performing or scheduled to perform a lane change (Shown in fig. 11 a-c and ¶58 the identification of the area).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please review US. Pat. 11,618,476 which creates a curvilinear probability for vehicle prediction when considering a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights