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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 08/13/2025, filed with the office on 12/03/2025, has been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 3, 2025 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, in page 8 of its reply, Applicant argues in third paragraph that Briggs determines a distance of each Lidar point to the best fit plane and does not disclose computing a distance between a Lidar sensor and a Lidar point. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Briggs measures distance between Lidar points and a best fit plane in order to remove outliers, Briggs also computes direction and distance information between a Lidar sensor and the surface of a target object— Briggs, ¶0031: “LiDAR data provides information on direction and distance to the object in space”. And uses the direction of a 3D point on the surface of the object and its distance from the Lidar sensor (computed using the light beam return time) to determine the exact location of the surface point of the object— Briggs, ¶0001: “The return time for each return light beam is combined with the location of the LiDAR sensor to determine a precise location of a surface point of an object, and this location is recorded as a three-dimensional point in space”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0340775 A1), in view of Briggs et al. (US 2020/0174107 A1), in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2016/0364917 A1), and still in further view of Kanzawa (US 2020/0386894 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches, A method comprising: receiving, (Lee, ¶0096: “method comprising: receiving LIDAR data”) by at least one processor of a vehicle, (Lee, ¶0073: “vehicle system 602 may include processor(s) 604”) a plurality of LiDAR points from a LiDAR system (Lee, ¶0028: “LIDAR data… captured by a LIDAR sensor”) of the vehicle, (Lee, ¶0028: “autonomous vehicle equipped…LIDAR sensor.”) the plurality of LiDAR points representing at least one object (Lee, ¶0031: “LIDAR points that correspond to a surface of the occluding object”) in an environment (Lee, ¶0083: “an object in the environment”) traveled by the vehicle; (Lee, ¶0083: “an environment surrounding the vehicle”) determining, by the at least one processor, (Lee, ¶0085: “processor(s) 604 to…determine”) a Euclidean distance ratio of each LiDAR point of the plurality of LiDAR points from the LiDAR system (Lee, ¶0014: “a LIDAR sensor may measure the distance from the LIDAR sensor to multiple surface points” and ¶0051: “a maximum range of the LIDAR (e.g., 100 meters)”; with known distance to a point and a known maximum range, one skilled in the art can measure the ratio) in a three-dimensional (3D) space, (Lee, ¶0014: “a point cloud including three-dimensional coordinates of the multiple surface points”) (Lee, ¶0066: “process 500 may include comparing”) the Euclidean distance ratio of each LiDAR point of the plurality of LiDAR points with (Lee, ¶0013: “each LIDAR point may be associated with a distance”) responsive to the Euclidean distance ratio (Lee, ¶0056: “a Euclidean distance”) of each LiDAR point (Lee, ¶0056: “a distance of the LIDAR point's projection”) of the plurality of LiDAR points being less than the respective (Lee, ¶0021: “If the difference is less than or equal to the threshold difference”) (Lee, ¶0063: “remove points attributable to an occluding object”) generate a point cloud; (Lee, ¶0014: “create a point cloud (e.g., a plurality of LIDAR points)”) and operating, by the at least one processor, (Lee, ¶0089: “processor(s) 604 to generate… trajectory of the example vehicle”) the vehicle based on the point cloud. (Lee, ¶0108: “controlling motion of an autonomous vehicle based on… depth estimate”; ¶0107: “point cloud points associated…depth estimate”). However, Lee does not explicitly teach, where the Euclidean distance ratio is a ratio of a distance between the LiDAR system and the LiDAR point in the 3D space to a maximum measurement range between the LiDAR system and the LiDAR point in the 3D space; and a respective sampled Euclidean distance ratio from a standard normal distribution of Euclidean distance ratios; wherein the sampled Euclidean distance ratio ensures that a LiDAR point that is closer to the LiDAR system is more likely to be removed than a LiDAR point that is further away from the LiDAR system;
In an analogous field of endeavor, Briggs teaches, where the Euclidean distance ratio is a ratio of a distance between the LiDAR system and the LiDAR point in the 3D space (Briggs, ¶0037: “the LiDAR sensor captures a depth profile comprising a plurality of 3D points 350 corresponding to a distance from the LiDAR sensor to the planar surface of the calibration surface 130” wherein each point location represents a point in 3D space ¶0016: “determine a precise location of a surface point of an object. This location is recorded as a three-dimensional point in space”) to a maximum measurement range between the LiDAR system and the LiDAR point in the 3D space; (Briggs, ¶0066: “A LiDAR is an effective sensor for measuring distances to targets, and as such may be used to generate a three-dimensional (3D) model of… objects such as other cars, curbs, debris, objects, and pedestrians up to a maximum range of the sensor arrangement (e.g., 50, 100, or 200 meters)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee using the teachings of Briggs to introduce LiDAR points in three-dimensional space. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of measuring distances in the three-dimensional space in order to determine the proximity of surrounding objects. Both cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee and Briggs to obtain the above-described limitations of claim 1. However, the combination of Lee and Briggs does not explicitly teach, a respective sampled Euclidean distance ratio from a standard normal distribution of Euclidean distance ratios; wherein the sampled Euclidean distance ratio ensures that a LiDAR point that is closer to the LiDAR system is more likely to be removed than a LiDAR point that is further away from the LiDAR system.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Zhang teaches, a respective sampled Euclidean distance ratio (Zhang, ¶0027: “system may then use a down-sampling ratio… to determine what percentage of points to keep after downsizing”) from a standard normal distribution (Zhang, ¶0039: “a normal distribution”) of Euclidean distance ratios; (Zhang, ¶0039: “using Eq. 2 listed above and maintains the local point density proportional to the point cloud 402… results in a point cloud that is more accurate to an original point cloud than using a random distribution method (e.g. where points are randomly removed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs using the teachings of Zhang to introduce sampling and a normal distribution. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of comparing between two datasets and drawing meaningful conclusion based on statistical findings. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs and Zhang to obtain the above-described limitations of claim 1. However, the combination of Lee, Briggs and Zhang does not explicitly teach, wherein the sampled Euclidean distance ratio ensures that a LiDAR point that is closer to the LiDAR system is more likely to be removed than a LiDAR point that is further away from the LiDAR system;
In still another analogous field of endeavor, Kanzawa teaches, wherein the sampled Euclidean distance ratio ensures that a LiDAR point that is closer to the LiDAR system is more likely to be removed than a LiDAR point that is further away from the LiDAR system; (Kanzawa, ¶0005: “cells that are closer to the camera will have more points removed than cells that are farther from the camera. Because LiDAR points tend to be denser at a closer distance, removing points from close cells may have less effect on the vehicle functions that use the points.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang using the teachings of Kanzawa to introduce removal of certain lidar points. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of faster processing and better resource usage by the lidar system. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs, Zhang, and Kanzawa to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of LiDAR points has a first density variation (Lee, ¶0022: “a first density of LIDAR points”) and the point cloud has a second density variation (Lee, ¶0107: “a second density of point cloud points”) less than the first density variation. (Zhang, ¶0019: “the number of points in the second point cloud reduced by an amount”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa using the additional teachings of Zhang to introduce reducing points in a point cloud. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of reduced density that smoothed down the point cloud. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs, Zhang, and Kanzawa to obtain the invention in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 2, wherein generating the point cloud (Zhang, ¶0005: “generates a second point cloud”) comprises down- sampling, (Zhang, ¶0027: “a down-sampling ratio…determine what percentage of an original point cloud to remove”) by the at least one processor, (Zhang, ¶0041: “The processor 602 may simplify point cloud”) the plurality of LiDAR points (Zhang, ¶0002: “Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) point clouds”) to provide the second density variation. (Zhang, -¶0007: “a second point cloud” and ¶0020: “a local point density of the point clouds.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa using the additional teachings of Zhang to introduce down sampling. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of a smoothed point cloud with less density. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs, Zhang, and Kanzawa to obtain the invention in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 2, wherein removing the LiDAR point from the plurality of LiDAR points (Lee, ¶0062: “removing a portion of LIDAR points from the LIDAR points”) is based on the first density variation. (Lee, ¶0022: “comparing a first density of LIDAR points…to a second density of LIDAR points”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 2, further comprising determining, by the at least one processor, a likelihood of adding the LiDAR point to the point cloud (Zhang, ¶0023: “higher the weight is the more likely the point is kept in the point cloud”) based on the first density variation. (Zhang, ¶0043: “The first point cloud includes…a local density”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa using the additional teachings of Zhang to introduce a likelihood computation. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of determining whether a Lidar point will be added into the point cloud for better representation of the detected object. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs, Zhang, and Kanzawa to obtain the invention in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising comparing, by the at least one processor, a measurement range of the LiDAR system (Lee, ¶0051: “range of the LIDAR (e.g., 100 meters)”) with a distance from the LiDAR system to the at least one object. (Lee, ¶0029: “a tolerable limit of the LIDAR sensor (e.g., 150 meters) to identify the LIDAR points that may reasonably correspond to a detected object.”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 2, further comprising reducing, by the at least one processor, an amount of noise (Zhang, ¶0028: “Eq. 2…preventing the inclusion of random error or noise”) in the point cloud (Zhang, ¶0028: “the two point clouds.”) based on the second density variation. (Zhang, ¶0028: “Eq. 2 takes into consideration the local point density”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa using the additional teachings of Zhang to introduce noise reduction. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of a better-quality point cloud that has higher signal to noise ratio. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs, Zhang, and Kanzawa to obtain the invention in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 2, further comprising smoothing, by the at least one processor, (Zhang, ¶0007: “The processor may remove, a portion of the points”) the point cloud based on the second density variation. (Zhang, ¶0027: “Using this measure of local point density… use a down-sampling ratio…to determine what percentage of an original point cloud to remove”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Lee, Briggs, Zhang, and Kanzawa references presented in the rejection of claim 3, apply to claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in claim 12 is met by Lee, Briggs, Zhang, and Kanzawa.
Regarding claim 13, it recites a vehicle with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of vehicle claim 13 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. In addition, Lee further teaches, A vehicle comprising: at least one computer processor; (Lee, ¶0073: “the vehicle system 602 may include processor(s) 604”) and at least one non-transitory storage medium storing instructions (Lee, ¶0075: “a non-transitory computer readable media configured to store executable instructions”) which, when executed by the at least one computer processor, (Lee, ¶0074: “processor capable of executing instructions”) cause the at least one computer processor to: receive (Lee, ¶0083: “the processor(s) 604, cause the processor(s) 604 to receive”).
Regarding claim 14, it recites a vehicle with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of vehicle claim 14 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 2. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa presented in rejection of claim 2, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 15, it recites a vehicle with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of vehicle claim 15 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 3. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa presented in rejection of claim 3, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 16, it recites a vehicle with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of vehicle claim 16 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 4. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 17, it recites a non-transitory storage media including instructions corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited instructions of the non-transitory storage media claim 17 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. In addition, Lee further teaches, At least one non-transitory storage media storing instructions (Lee, ¶0075: “a non-transitory computer readable media configured to store executable instructions”) which, when executed (Lee, ¶0089: “instructions stored on memory 606 that, when executed”) by at least one computing device, (Lee, ¶0076: “multiple computing devices”) cause the at least one computing device to: receive (Lee, ¶0079: “the sensor data… may be received…a remote computing system”).
Regarding claim 18, it recites a non-transitory storage media including instructions corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 2. Therefore, the recited instructions of the non-transitory storage media claim 18 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 2. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa presented in rejection of claim 2, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 19, it recites a non-transitory storage media including instructions corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 3. Therefore, the recited instructions of the non-transitory storage media claim 19 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 3. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa presented in rejection of claim 3, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 20, it recites a non-transitory storage media including instructions corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 4. Therefore, the recited instructions of the non-transitory storage media claim 20 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 4. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0340775 A1), in view of Briggs et al. (US 2020/0174107 A1), in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2016/0364917 A1), still in further view of Kanzawa (US 2020/0386894 A1) and yet in further view of Englard et al. (US 2019/0180502 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 6, wherein the LiDAR system comprises at least one LiDAR, the method further comprising determining, by the at least one processor, However, the combination of Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa does not explicitly teach, the measurement range of the LiDAR system based on the speed of light and a pulse-repetition- frequency of the at least one LiDAR.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Englard teaches, the measurement range of the LiDAR system (Englard, ¶0078: “The maximum range of lidar system 200 may be any suitable distance”) based on the speed of light (Englard, ¶0077: “lidar system 200 may be expressed as D=c.T/2, where c is the speed of light”) and a pulse-repetition- frequency of the at least one LiDAR. (Englard, ¶0077: “emitted pulse of light to travel from the lidar system 200”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa using the teachings of Englard to introduce the computation of the range of the Lidar system. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of computing how far from a distance the lidar system can detect an object. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs, Zhang, Kanzawa and Englard to obtain the invention in claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0340775 A1), in view of Briggs et al. (US 2020/0174107 A1), in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2016/0364917 A1), still in further view of Kanzawa (US 2020/0386894 A1) and yet in further view of Di et al. (US 2019/0391580 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the at least one processor, However, the combination of Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa does not explicitly teach, the respective sampled Euclidean distance as a random number.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Di teaches the respective sampled Euclidean distance as a random number. (Di, ¶0176: “Euclidean… determined by generating a uniform integer random number”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa using the teachings of Di to introduce a sampled random number. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of a variable sampled Euclidean distance that can be adjusted based on the range of the Lidar system. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs, Zhang, Kanzawa and Di to obtain the invention in claim 8.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0340775 A1), in view of Briggs et al. (US 2020/0174107 A1), in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2016/0364917 A1), still in further view of Kanzawa (US 2020/0386894 A1) and yet in further view of Khawaja (US 2019/0005667 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Briggs, in further Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa teaches, The method of claim 2, further comprising However, the combination of Lee, Briggs, Zhang and Kanzawa does not explicitly teach, segmenting, by the at least one processor, the point cloud based on the second density variation to identify the at least one object.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Khawaja teaches, segmenting, (Khawaja, ¶0012: “contiguous segments of the pointcloud”) by the at least one processor, (Khawaja, ¶0093: “applications processor 324 or pointcloud-data processor”) the point cloud based on the second density variation (Khawaja, ¶0119: “A more dense data resolution level may permit a higher number of total segments”) to identify the at least one object. (Khawaja, ¶0008: “detecting…obstacles along its path”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa using the teachings of Khawaja to introduce segmented point cloud. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of identifying objects based on their point cloud density variation. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs, Zhang, Kanzawa and Khawaja to obtain the invention in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa, and still in further view of Khawaja teaches, The method of claim 9, wherein operating the vehicle (Khawaja, ¶0002: “autonomously operating ground vehicle”) is further based on the segmented point cloud (Khawaja, ¶0012: “contiguous segments of the pointcloud”) to avoid a collision with the at least one object. (Khawaja, ¶0008: “avoiding… obstacles along its path.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Briggs, in further view of Zhang and still in further view of Kanzawa, still in further view of Khawaja using the additional teachings of Khawaja to introduce point cloud-based vehicle operation. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements, as described above, and achieve the predictable result of identifying objects along the path and avoid collision while autonomous vehicle operation. All of the cited prior arts are in the field of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Lee, Briggs, Zhang, Kanzawa and Khawaja to obtain the invention in claim 10.
Conclusion
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 MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
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, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662