NXP USA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 15, 2021

2020002997 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/386,001 12/21/2016 Michael STAUDENMAIER AM21570EH-US02 6787 23125 7590 12/15/2021 NXP USA, INC. LAW DEPARTMENT 6501 WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE WEST TX30/OE62 AUSTIN, TX 78735 EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ip.department.us@nxp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MICHAEL STAUDENMAIER and NIKHIL JOTWANI1 ________________ Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–15, which constitute all claims pending in this application. Appeal Br. 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Pursuant to our discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies NXP USA, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3, filed November 22, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”). Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the present invention as follows: The present application relates to a system for generating a surround view and a method of operating the system. A synthesizer module (130) synthesizes an output frame (200) from input frames (210.1 to 210.4) in accordance with predefined calibration data (100). The input frames (210.1 to 210.4) have an overlapping region (OL 1-2 to OL 4-1) imaging an overlapping field of view captured by two adjacent cameras. An adjustment module (120) receives height level information (HL 1-2 to HL 4-1) representative of a height level in the overlapping region (OL 1-2 to OL 4-1); selects a data record out of a set (101 to 104) of predefined calibration data records in accordance with the height level information (HL 1-2 to HL 4-1); and updates the predefined a part of the calibration data (100) with the selected data record. Spec., Abstr. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with disputed claim language emphasized, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims: 1. A method of adjusting predefined calibration data for generating a perspective view, wherein the perspective view is synthesized in an output frame from input frames in accordance with the predefined calibration data, wherein each input frame originates from one of a plurality of cameras comprising two adjacent cameras, the input frames of which have an overlapping region imaging an overlapping field of view captured by the two adjacent cameras, wherein the method comprises: providing a set of predefined calibration data records each of which relating to a different height level of a surface at an elevated level in a corresponding reference environment; receiving height level information representative of a height level of a surface in the overlapping region in images taken by the two adjacent cameras, Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 3 selecting a data record out of the set of predefined calibration data records in accordance with the height level of the surface in the overlapping region; and updating the predefined calibration data with the selected data record. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION Statement of the rejection2 Claim(s) 1–15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Gupta (US 2015/0049193 Al; published Feb. 19, 2015) and Lu (US 2014/0098229 Al; published Apr. 10, 2014). Final Act. 3–9. Standard of Review The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Determinations and Contentions The Examiner finds that Gupta discloses most of the limitations of independent claim 1, but does not disclose “providing a set of predefined calibration data records each of which relating to a different height level of a surface at an elevated level in a corresponding reference environment,” as recited by claim 1’s first limitation. Final Act. 5 (citing Lu ¶¶ 36, 44, 53). 2 The Examiner had initially rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3. But the Examiner subsequently withdrew this rejection after Appellant amended the claim. Amendment filed July 7, 2019; Advisory Action 2, mailed July 15, 2019. Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 4 The Examiner finds that Lu teaches this limitation and that motivation existed to combine the teachings of Lu with Gupta’s system. Id. (citing Lu ¶ 3). More specifically, the Examiner finds, Lu discloses that the process provides a math model oriented, multi-target based nominal adjustment, where the process includes multiple targets, targets coverage at stitching corners and camera front center; camera multi-axial (pitch, yaw and roll) deviation measurement by feature patterns on targets; and camera lens-imager misalignment measurement by feature patterns on targets. Examiner’s Answer 9, mailed Jan. 14, 2020 (“Ans.”) (citing Lu ¶¶ 21–26). According to the Examiner, “The system uses the above math models to compute needed angle changes and pixel shifts.” Ans. 9 (citing Lu ¶ 27). The Examiner finds Lu’s system perform final and minor “pixel nudging” to fine tune any field mis-match. Id. The Examiner also finds, “Lu discloses that a math model adjusts all four (4) virtual camera positions to a vertical orientation over a selected floor location based on nominal vehicle CAD to achieve properly scaled top-down scenes.” Id. at 10 (citing Lu ¶ 44). Appellant asserts, inter alia, “[n]either Gupta or Lu, alone or in combination, disclose[s] or even suggest[s] that calibration records relating to a different height level of a surface at an elevated level in a reference environment are ever taken into account in the disclosed calibration processes.” Appeal Br. 17. Addressing Lu in particular, Appellant argues, The calibration in Lu does not disclose, suggest, or take into account a set of predefined calibration data records, each relating to a different height level of a surface at an elevated level in a corresponding reference environment as recited in claim 1. Lu only measures mis-matching distances in the [bird’s] eye view, which is not predefined and does not “relate to a different height Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 5 level of a surface at an elevated level in a reference environment.” Id. at 16–17. According to Appellant, A math model in Lu adjusts virtual camera positions to a vertical orientation of a selected floor location based on a nominal vehicle CAD to achieve properly scaled top-down scenes. . . . Referring to FIG. 7, the start images are taken at an angle to the floor surface (reference environment), and the math correction scales the vertical orientation of the images so the edges of the images meet adjacent images. The images are adjusted to a vertical orientation, but the vertical position or height of the floor in the images is not adjusted. The actual position of the camera is also not adjusted in Lu. . . . Instead of the camera image appearing from the viewpoint of the camera as mounted on the side of the automobile, the camera image is adjusted so that is appears the photo was taken from above (birds eye view) instead of from the side of the automobile. . . . Lu also does not disclose or suggest that the reference environment (floor) has different height levels. Appeal Br. 17 (citing Lu ¶¶ 42–44). Analysis Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Lu discloses that vertical and horizontal misalignments primarily result from deviations in the actual positions of the cameras. Lu ¶¶ 50–51. The Examiner does not point out sufficiently where Lu discloses taking into consideration deviations or different height levels of a surface at an elevated level in a corresponding reference environment, as claimed. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We likewise reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2–15, which either depend from claim 1 or otherwise recite similar claim language. Appeal Br. 19–22. Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 6 PATENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER SECTION 101 Pursuant to our discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an exception to patent-eligible subject matter (an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more. Principles of Law A. SECTION 101: Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 7 mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. at 191 (citing Benson and Flook); see also, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 8 omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE: In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October 2019 Guidance Update”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the availability of the October 2019 Guidance Update). “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Guidance Update at 1. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates this revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).3 Under MPEP § 2106, we first look to whether the claim recites the following: 3 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated. Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 9 (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.4 MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activity” in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d). The Claimed Subject Matter Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with paragraph designators added for clarity and emphasis added to the claim language that recites an abstract idea: 4 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)II. Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 10 1. A method of adjusting predefined calibration data for generating a perspective view, wherein the perspective view is synthesized in an output frame from input frames in accordance with the predefined calibration data, wherein each input frame originates from one of a plurality of cameras comprising two adjacent cameras, the input frames of which have an overlapping region imaging an overlapping field of view captured by the two adjacent cameras, wherein the method comprises: [(a)] providing a set of predefined calibration data records each of which relating to a different height level of a surface at an elevated level in a corresponding reference environment; [(b)] receiving height level information representative of a height level of a surface in the overlapping region in images taken by the two adjacent cameras, [(c)] selecting a data record out of the set of predefined calibration data records in accordance with the height level of the surface in the overlapping region; and [(d)] updating the predefined calibration data with the selected data record. Analysis STEP 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Accordingly, we turn to step 2A of the 2019 Guidance. Step 2A, Prong 1 STEP 2A, PRONG 1: Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 11 organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a). Step (c) recites, “selecting a data record out of the set of predefined calibration data records in accordance with the height level of the surface in the overlapping region.” Selecting records out of a set of potential records constitutes a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgment that can be performed in the human mind. The 2019 Guidance recognizes mental processes, including evaluations and judgments, as constituting a patent- ineligible abstract idea. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, limitation (c) recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Step (d) recites, “updating the predefined calibration data with the selected data record.” Updating data also constitutes a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgment that can be performed either in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The “mental processes” judicial exception also includes concepts that can be performed by a human with a pen and paper as well as those that can be performed entirely in the mind. See October 2019 Guidance Update at 9 (“A claim that encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper recites a mental process”) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, limitation (d) also recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea. For these reasons, both of limitations (c) and (d) recite a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”). STEP 2A, PRONG 2: Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 12 Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether claim 1 recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a). Limitations (a) and (b) recite, (a) providing a set of predefined calibration data records each of which relating to a different height level of a surface at an elevated level in a corresponding reference environment; [and] (b) receiving height level information representative of a height level of a surface in the overlapping region in images taken by the two adjacent cameras. These limitations merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity: An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP § 2106.05(g). For these reasons, limitations (a) and (b) of claim 1 are not directed to an improvement in the function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor are the limitations directed to a particular machine or transformation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), (c). Nor do the Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 13 limitations add any other meaningful limitations for the purposes of the analysis under Section 101. MPEP § 2106.05(e). Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. STEP 2B: Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether claim 1 adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well- understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d). We note as a threshold matter that claim 1 does not recite an affirmative step of generating a perspective view in an output frame. Rather, the preamble of claim 1 sets forth the prepositional phrase, “for generating a perspective view, wherein the perspective view is synthesized in an output frame from input frames in accordance with the predefined calibration data.” Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis added). The preamble of claim 1 makes reasonably clear, then, that generating a perspective view is merely the intended use or ultimate purpose of performing the affirmatively recited steps “of adjusting predefined calibration data”: gathering data, selecting records and updating records. Id. Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification indicates that the computer system that performs the recited steps with the gathered data may comprise a conventional processor, memory, and other computer components. E.g., Spec. 21:15–22 (stating the processor may be one or more general Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 14 processors, or other now known or later developed devices for analyzing and processing data.”); see generally Spec 21–24. For these reasons, we determine that claim 18 does not recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55; MPEP § 2106.05(d). CONCLUSION Accordingly, we newly reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an exception to patent-eligible subject matter without reciting significantly more. Although we decline to reject claims 2–15 pursuant to our discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we emphasize that our decision does not mean that the remaining claims are necessarily patentable. Rather, we merely leave the patentability determination of these claims to the Examiner. See MPEP § 1213.02. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1–15 103 Gupta, Lu 1–15 1 101 Eligibility 1 Overall Outcome 1–15 1 Appeal 2020-002997 Application 15/386,001 15 FINALITY AND RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Rule 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Rule 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . REVERSE; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)