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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed June 16, 2025. Claims 1, 13, and 29-40 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed June 16, 2025with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record, Chen et al., US 20190369241 A1, in view of Tay et al., US 20190196481 A1, and in view of Elie et al., US 20170293814 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chen, Tay, and Elie, fails to explicitly disclose receiving LIDAR sensor data and camera sensor data for the same area of a road surface, determining a confidence value indicative of whether an area of road surface includes standing water, and the claimed camera image for the area of road surface. Applicant further questions the reliance on Tay and Elie to cure the deficiencies of Chen and argues since Tay does not teach the claimed confidence value, Chen cannot disclose the claimed inputting an adjustment of the confidence value.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue a more narrow interpretation of area of road surface than claimed, as Examiner notes a surrounding area of a vehicle includes a road surface, as road vehicles typically travel on roads. Additionally, Examiner agrees that Chen does not disclose performing its control with respect to standing water. However, the previous rejection relied on Chen’s disclosure regarding using both LIDAR and a camera to image the surroundings of a vehicle, i.e., an area of a road surface (Sensors may include one or more sensors comprising LIDAR and camera for sensing an environment of a vehicle – See at least ¶29), and performing a confidence determination with respect to objects in the surroundings of the vehicle (Confidence determination – See at least ¶42).
Elie teaches an example of a surrounding vehicle object which can be detected similarly as Chen’s object detection is standing water (Detect presence of water on roadway – See at least ¶16 of Elie). Tay is merely relied up to teach it is well-known and routine in the vehicle collision control and object tracking arts to determine whether object recognition/identifications meets a confidence threshold and control the vehicle accordingly in response (Navigation actions in response to confidence meeting or exceeding threshold – See at least ¶64 of Tay).
For at least the above reasons, the previous rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 30-34, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., US 20190369241 A1, in view of Tay et al., US 20190196481 A1, and in view of Elie et al., US 20170293814 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chen, Tay, and Elie, respectively.
As to claim 1, Chen discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, LIDAR sensor data for an area of road surface, the LIDAR sensor data being generated by a LIDAR sensor of a perception system of a vehicle (LIDAR – See at least ¶28 and Fig. 1);
receiving, by the one or more processors, a camera image for the area of road surface, the camera image being generated by a camera of the perception system of the vehicle (Camera – See at least ¶28 and Fig. 1);
determining, by the one or more processors, a confidence value indicative of whether the area of road surface includes [an object] based on the LIDAR sensor data (Confidence based on cloud point data – See at least ¶42);
inputting, by the one or more processors, the camera image into a machine learning model in order to determine whether the camera image includes [the object] (Machine learning used to process image data to perform object identification/recognition – See at least ¶34); and
adjusting, by the one or more processors, the confidence value based on a determination that the camera image includes [the object] (Additional image-based confidence score – See at least ¶47).
Chen fails to explicitly disclose:
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the adjusted confidence value meets a threshold value; and
when the adjusted confidence value is determined to meet the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, operation of the vehicle in order to respond to [the object].
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen and include the feature of determining, by the one or more processors, whether the adjusted confidence value meets a threshold value, and when the adjusted confidence value is determined to meet the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, operation of the vehicle in order to respond to [the object], with a reasonable expectation of success, because Tay teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle collision control and object tracking arts to determine whether object recognition/identifications meets a confidence threshold and control the vehicle accordingly in response (Navigation actions in response to confidence meeting or exceeding threshold – See at least ¶64 of Tay).
Additionally, the combination of Chen and Tay fails to explicitly disclose performing the above control with respect to standing water as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen and Tay and include the feature of performing the above control with respect to standing water, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Elie teaches standing water is an example of the types of objects identified by the systems of Chen and Tay (Detect presence of water on roadway – See at least ¶16 of Elie).
Independent claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter.
As to claims 30, and 36, Chen discloses determining whether the confidence value satisfies the threshold value, and when the confidence value is determined not to satisfy the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to capture additional sensor data for the area of road surface (When LIDAR-based confidence score below threshold, system instructed to obtain additional data through camera – See at least ¶44).
The combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie fails to perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie and include the feature of perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because object detection/recognition/identification, like the object detection/recognition/identification of the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie, necessarily must occur prior to any responsive action, because any responsive action is necessarily dependent on object detection/recognition/identification by its nature.
As to claims 31, and 37, Chen fails to explicitly disclose determining whether the confidence value satisfies the threshold value, and when the confidence value is determined not to satisfy the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to take no action. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen and include the feature of determining whether the confidence value satisfies the threshold value, and when the confidence value is determined not to satisfy the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to take no action, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Tay teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle collision control and object tracking arts to determine whether object recognition/identifications meets a confidence threshold and control the vehicle accordingly in response, which may include disabling an action, i.e., taking no action (Navigation actions in response to confidence meeting or exceeding threshold – See at least ¶64 of Tay).
The combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie fails to perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie and include the feature of perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because object detection/recognition/identification, like the object detection/recognition/identification of the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie, necessarily must occur prior to any responsive action, because any responsive action is necessarily dependent on object detection/recognition/identification by its nature.
As to claims 32, and 38, Chen fails to explicitly disclose determining whether the confidence value satisfies the threshold value, and when the confidence value is determined not to satisfy the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to slow down. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen and include the feature of determining whether the confidence value satisfies the threshold value, and when the confidence value is determined not to satisfy the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to slow down, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Tay teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle collision control and object tracking arts to determine whether object recognition/identifications meets a confidence threshold and control the vehicle accordingly in response, which may include an emergency stop, i.e., slowing the vehicle (Navigation actions in response to confidence – See at least ¶16 of Tay; Navigation actions may include emergency stop – See at least ¶43).
The combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie fails to perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie and include the feature of perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because object detection/recognition/identification, like the object detection/recognition/identification of the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie, necessarily must occur prior to any responsive action, because any responsive action is necessarily dependent on object detection/recognition/identification by its nature.
As to claims 33, and 39, Chen fails to explicitly disclose determining whether the confidence value satisfies the threshold value, and when the confidence value is determined not to satisfy the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to stop. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen and include the feature of determining whether the confidence value satisfies the threshold value, and when the confidence value is determined not to satisfy the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to stop, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Tay teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle collision control and object tracking arts to determine whether object recognition/identifications meets a confidence threshold and control the vehicle accordingly in response, which may include an emergency stop (Navigation actions in response to confidence – See at least ¶16 of Tay; Navigation actions may include emergency stop – See at least ¶43).
The combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie fails to perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie and include the feature of perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because object detection/recognition/identification, like the object detection/recognition/identification of the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie, necessarily must occur prior to any responsive action, because any responsive action is necessarily dependent on object detection/recognition/identification by its nature.
As to claims 34, and 40, Chen fails to explicitly disclose determining whether the confidence value satisfies the threshold value, and when the confidence value is determined not to satisfy the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to alter a trajectory of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen and include the feature of determining whether the confidence value satisfies the threshold value, and when the confidence value is determined not to satisfy the threshold value, controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to alter a trajectory of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Tay teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle collision control and object tracking arts to determine whether object recognition/identifications meets a confidence threshold and control the vehicle accordingly in response, which may include altering a vehicle trajectory (Navigation actions in response to confidence – See at least ¶16 of Tay; Navigation actions may include veer – See at least ¶40).
The combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie fails to perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie and include the feature of perform the above prior to controlling the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because object detection/recognition/identification, like the object detection/recognition/identification of the combination of Chen, Tay, and Elie, necessarily must occur prior to any responsive action, because any responsive action is necessarily dependent on object detection/recognition/identification by its nature.
Claims 29, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., US 20190369241 A1, in view of Tay et al., US 20190196481 A1, and in view of Elie et al., US 20170293814 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aghamohammadi et al., US 20180012370 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chen, Tay, Elie, and Aghamohammadi, respectively.
As to claims 29 and 35, Chen discloses:
overlaying, by the one or more processors, the LIDAR sensor data on the camera image (Augment LIDAR with image data to identify objects – See at least ¶34); and
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the LIDAR sensor data aligns with one or more objects captured in the camera image, wherein the confidence value is adjusted when the LIDAR sensor data aligns with the one or more objects (Additional image-based confidence score to augment LIDAR-based confidence – See at least ¶47).
Chen fails to explicitly disclose the claimed inverting of the LIDAR sensor data. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen and include the feature of inverting of the LIDAR sensor data, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Aghamohammadi teaches inverting LIDAR data may be advantageous for reducing noise (See at least ¶68 of Aghamohammadi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steinberg et al., discloses detecting various objects in the surroudings of a vehicle, wherein a detected objected may be standing water (See at least ¶78 of Steinberg).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668