Conclusion
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species II in the reply filed on 05/12/2025 is acknowledged. Applicants argument is persuasive and restriction is withdrawn and claims 1-30 are examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 25, 30 invoke 112(f). Specifically, the following claim limitations invoke 112(f):
means for causing a transformer model to: process the point data to identify a set of points based at least in part on the angular subrange
means for performing an action based at least in part on whether the transformer model indicates that the set of points is associated with the object.
means for performing the action comprises: means for providing, via a user interface and based at least in part on the transformer model indicating that the set of points is associated with the object, an indication associated with the object, wherein the indication indicates at least one of: a location of the object, or a type of the object.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structures described in the specification for the § 112 sixth limitations:
means for causing a transformer model to: process the point data to identify a set of points based at least in part on the angular subrange (lidar in light of specification para 59)
means for performing an action based at least in part on whether the transformer model indicates that the set of points is associated with the object (electronic control unit in light of specification para 63).
means for performing the action comprises: means for providing, via a user interface and based at least in part on the transformer model indicating that the set of points is associated with the object(display, a speaker, a haptic feedback component, an audio or visual indicator, and/or the specification para 29).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under§ 112, sixth, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke§ 112, sixth, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of§ 112, sixth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1,3-8,12-13,15-17,19,21-23,is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102019122189 A1(SIEGEMUND).
Claim 1,13,19,25 (mutatis mutandis). (Original) SIEGEMUND teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a device, point data from a lidar scanner, wherein the point data is associated with an angular subrange of a polar grid of the lidar scanner (para 8-9 note point cloud and lidar scanner);
causing, by the device, a transformer model to:
process the point data to identify a set of points based at least in part on the angular subrange, analyze the set of points based at least in part on a polar distance between the set of points and an origin of the polar grid (para 12,25 note origin), and indicate whether the set of points is associated with an object (para 20 note object detection using algorithm);
and performing, by the device, an action based at least in part on whether the transformer model indicates that the set of points is associated with the object (para 69 note control vehicle based on object data).
Claim 3,15,21,27 (mutatis mutandis). (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transformer model is trained to determine whether the set of points is representative of the object based at least in part on historical data associated with another object within a feature space that corresponds to a polar cell, of the polar grid, that is defined by the polar distance, wherein the historical data includes one or more historical sets of points that are representative of the other object (para 87 note object, para 69 note algorithm stored in memory, para 93 note the method 200 is evaluated by comparing the objects recognized by the method 200 with the object information present in the extended training data set. See figure 2-3, 5 and note grid cell).
Claim 4,16,22,28 (mutatis mutandis). (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transformer model is trained to determine whether the set of points is representative of the object based at least in part on an arrangement of the set of points within a polar cell of the polar grid, and wherein the transformer model is trained based at least in part on historical sets of points associated with another object within a feature space that corresponds to the polar cell (para 87 note object, para 69 note algorithm stored in memory, para 93 note the method 200 is evaluated by comparing the objects recognized by the method 200 with the object information present in the extended training data set. See figure 2-3, 5 and note grid cell).
Claim 5,17,23,29 (mutatis mutandis). (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transformer model comprises: an encoder that translates polar coordinates of the set of points to object query data; and a decoder that predicts whether the set of points is associated with the object based at least in part on the object query data (para 76- 86 note encoding and also note evaluation algorithm).
Claim 6. (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the object query data comprises three dimensional data that is associated with one or more types of objects, wherein the transformer model is trained to identify the one or more types of objects, and wherein a type of the object is one of the one or more types of objects (para 51 note three dimensional grid, para 69 note classes of objects).
Claim 7. (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the decoder is configured to predict whether the set of points is associated with the object based at least in part on a similarity analysis associated with the object query data and reference data associated with the type of the object (para 20 classify objects).
Claim 8. (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transformer model processes the point data based at least in part on a sequence associated with the polar grid, wherein the sequence indicates an order in which individual subsets of the point data that are associated with corresponding polar cells of the polar grid are to be processed (see abstract. Processing data points in a sequence is inherent).
Claim 12. (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the angular subrange corresponds to a range that is a threshold percentage of 360 degrees (see figure 2-3,5).
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.
Claim(s) 2,14,20,26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102019122189 A1(SIEGEMUND) in view of US 20190033459 A1(Tisdale).
Claim 2,14,20,26 (mutatis mutandis) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transformer model is trained to determine whether the set of points is representative of the object based at least in part on historical data […] wherein the other object and the object are a same type […], and wherein the physical distance is associated with the polar distance (para 87 note object, para 69 note algorithm stored in memory, para 93 note the method 200 is evaluated by comparing the objects recognized by the method 200 with the object information present in the extended training data set ).
SIEGEMUND fails but Tisdale teaches that historical data is associated with another scanner that identified another object in an area that is a physical distance from the other scanner, the other scanner is associated with the lidar scanner (para 50 note reference data and another lidar)
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of SIEGEMUND and Tisdale and modify the device such that historical data is associated with another scanner that identified another object in an area that is a physical distance from the other scanner, the other scanner is associated with the lidar scanner. The motivation to do would be to avoid error by comparing data with historic data (Tisdale para 05).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102019122189 A1(SIEGEMUND) in view of US 20200271788 A1 (Lewis).
Claim 9. (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 8. SIEGEMUND fails to explicitly teach wherein the transformer model is configured to selectively determine whether to process a particular subset of the point data based at least in part on whether a previously processed subset of the point data included at least one point. However, Lewis teaches whether to process a particular subset of the point data based at least in part on whether a previously processed subset of the point data included at least one point (note areas of interest are scanned again and empty areas are skipped.).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of SIEGEMUND and METZLER and modify the device such that it can determine whether to process a particular subset of the point data based at least in part on whether a previously processed subset of the point data included at least one point because such processing flexibility allows improved long-range operation.
Claim(s) 10-11,24,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102019122189 A1(SIEGEMUND) in view of US 20180181789 A1(METZLER).
Claim 10,18,24,30 (mutatis mutandis). (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 1. SIEGEMUND fails but METZLER teaches wherein performing the action comprises: providing, via a user interface and based at least in part on the transformer model indicating that the set of points is associated with the object, an indication associated with the object, wherein the indication indicates at least one of: a location of the object, or a type of the object (para 88 classification, user).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of SIEGEMUND and METZLER and modify the device such that it can provide, via a user interface and based at least in part on the transformer model indicating that the set of points is associated with the object, and the indication indicates a location or a type of the object. The motivation to do so would be to take immediate action if the classification is incorrect (METZLER para 55).
Claim 11. (Original) Siegemund teaches the method of claim 1, SIEGEMUND fails but METZLER teaches wherein performing the action comprises: obtaining, from a user device and based at least in part on the transformer model indicating that the set of points is not associated with the object, feedback associated with an indication that the set of points is not associated with the object; and retraining the transformer model based at least in part on the set of points and the feedback (METZLER para 88,96-99 note user, feedback and training).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of SIEGEMUND and METZLER and modify the device such that it can retrain the transformer model based on feedback from the user when the set of points is not associated with the object because this can be used as training data in a training procedure providing an improved classifier for a class of interest (METZLER para 85).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDA NASER whose telephone number is (571)272-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/SANJIDA NASER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645