DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered are persuasive. The rejections previously applied are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art of record, alone or as combined, fails to teach or render obvious the following limitation:
determining the one or more characteristics of the VRM comprises:
determining a temporal profile of the reflected intensity of the at least one return point;
processing the temporal profile of the reflected intensity using a simulation model to predict an extinction coefficient associated with signal propagation in the VRM; and
determining, using the extinction coefficient, a visibility range for one or more components of the sensing system.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: while these claims are marked as canceled, the content is not deleted. For purpose of compact prosecution, prior art rejections are made to these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second and fourth paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear as it depends on a canceled claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 20, it depends on a canceled claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaChapelle et al., US 20180284226 A1 (“LaChapelle”).
Regarding claim 14, LaChapelle teaches a method (Fig. 14, [0146]) comprising:
obtaining, using a sensing system of an autonomous vehicle (AV) ([0146], Lidar 100, Lidar on vehicle, Figs. 1 & 9;), a plurality of return points (Fig. 14, steps 802-806), wherein each of the plurality of return points comprises i) a direction of a respective sensing signal emitted by the sensing system and reflected by an outside environment ([0147] & [0148]), and ii) a reflected intensity of the respective sensing signal ([0151], return light pulse peak power, average power, or energy);
identifying that a subset of the plurality of return points is associated with a reference object ([0149], reflected light pulses from a target 130), wherein the reference object is associated with a stored reference intensity value ([0152] threshold of return light pulse peak power); and
determining one or more characteristics of a visibility-reducing medium (VRM) in the outside environment, based on a reduction, compared with the stored reference intensity value, of the reflected intensity of each return point of the identified subset of the plurality of return points ([0150] –[0152] determine fog, sleet, snow, rain,… etc that distorts a return light to have peak power from a target below some threshold).
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-7, 9-11, 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachter et al. US 20210132197 A1 (Wachter), in view of Pacala, US 20210333371 A1 (Pacala) and Hartman et al., US 20190056504 A1 (Hartman).
Regarding claim 17, Wachter teaches a system comprising:
a sensing system of an autonomous vehicle (AV) (Figs 1, 2A, 3A-3D, Lidar device 310), the sensing system to:
obtain a plurality of return points (Fig. 7A, steps 701, 702), wherein each of the plurality of return points comprises i) a direction of a respective sensing signal emitted by the sensing system and reflected by an outside environment ([0050]), and ii) a reflected intensity of the respective sensing signal ([0051]); and
a perception system of the AV (Lidar controller 130, [0054]), the perception system to:
responsive to detecting temporal elongation of reflected intensity of one or more return points of a first set of return points,
determine, based on at least one return point from at least the first set of return points
However, Wachter does not teach:
process a second set of return points to detect presence of a visibility-reducing medium (VRM) in the outside environment based on a determination that at least three return points of the second set of return points associated with directions that differ from each other by at least 10 degrees have a characteristic reflected intensity that is higher than a noise intensity threshold and lower than a threshold intensity associated with a reflection from a solid object
determine, based on at least one return point from at least the first set of return points or a second set of return points of the plurality of return points, one or more characteristics of the VRM.
On the other hand, Pacala teaches fog detection by considering sensor data across a wider field of view and applying signal-shape analysis to some minimum number or fraction of sensor channels that have signal shape indicative of fog in order to distinguish atmospheric fog from localized cloud of stream from vehicle tailpipes or underground utility lines (Pacala, [0073]; [0083] field of view can be as wide as desired, up to 360 degrees).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the invention, to have modified Wachter’s system, in view of Pacala’s teach, to process a second set of return points to detect presence of a visibility-reducing medium (VRM) in the outside environment based on a determination that at least three return points of the second set of return points associated with directions that differ from each other by at least 10 degrees.
The motivation do so is to distinguish atmospheric fog from localized cloud of stream from vehicle tailpipes or underground utility lines (Pacala, [0073]).
Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala, also teaches
determine, based on at least one return point from at least the first set of return points or a second set of return points of the plurality of return points, one or more characteristics of the VRM (Wachter, [0095], determine amount of elongation).
However, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala, still does not teach [a determination that … the second set of return points … ] have a characteristic reflected intensity that is higher than a noise intensity threshold and lower than a threshold intensity associated with a reflection from a solid object.
On the other hand, Hartman teaches identifying signals from fog to have a reflected intensity to be above a noise floor and below a saturation or retro-reflector threshold. Specifically, the high intensity signals are considered as from solid targets. (Figs 3, and 4, [0030-0032]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified Wachter’s system, to distinguish fog from solid targets such that [the first or second set of return points … ] have a characteristic reflected intensity that is higher than a noise intensity threshold and lower than a threshold intensity associated with a reflection from a solid object.
The motivation to do so is to accurately and quickly distinguish atmospheric fog from background noise and solid targets.
Regarding claim 18, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the temporal elongation of the reflected intensity of the one or more return points of the first set of return points is detected relative to temporal extent of corresponding sensing signals emitted by the sensing system (Wachter, [0093], reference pulse widths corresponding to emitting power level).
Regarding claim 19, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the system of claim 17, wherein to detect presence of the VRM in the outside environment the perception system is to:
determine a characteristic reflected intensity for each of the first set of return points (Wachter, [0051], [0074];); and
identify that the characteristic reflected intensity for one or more return points of the first set of return points is below the threshold intensity (Hartman, Figs 3, and 4, [0030-0032]; the 103 analysis of claim 17 applies similarly).
Regarding claim 20, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the second set of return points is identified by excluding one or more return points from the plurality of return points, the one or more excluded return points identified as return points associated with reflection from solid objects (Hartman, Fig. 4, [0031-0032], testing steps 220 or 225 result in target classified as non-amorphous).
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 are method claims corresponding to system claims 17-20. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 2, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the VRM is at least one of fog, rain, snow, or dust (Wachter, [0095], fog detection).
Regarding claim 3, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of return points and the second set of return points comprise one or more common return points (Wachter, [0073]; Pacala, [0073], Hartman, [0031], [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the characteristic reflected intensity is one of a maximum reflected intensity of a corresponding sensing signal or an average reflected intensity of the corresponding sensing signal (Hartman, [0031]-[0032], predominant peak).
Regarding claim 9, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the second set of return points comprises the same, within a tolerance value, reflected intensity (Hartman, Fig. 3, see pulse 162b on the left).
Regarding claim 10, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more characteristics of the VRM is based, at least in part, on the characteristic reflected intensity for each of the second set of return points, wherein the characteristic reflected intensity is one of a maximum reflected intensity for a corresponding return point or an average reflected intensity for the corresponding return point (Hartman, [0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the method of claim 1. However, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, does not teach wherein the one or more characteristics of the VRM comprise a density of the VRM (Hartman, [0045]).
On the other hand, Hartman teaches further determining density of phantom in order to notify a passenger on an AV ([0045]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to have further modified Wachter’s method to determine density of fog in order to provide safety alert to a passenger.
Regarding claim 13, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
causing a driving path of the AV to be determined in view of the one or more determined characteristics of the VRM (Wachter, [0043], avoid only physical objects but not volumetric medium such as fog, rain, dust, etc.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachter Pacala and Hartman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al., WO 2014168851 A1 (Zhu).
Regarding claim 12, Wachter, as modified in view of Pacala and Hartman, teaches the method of claim 1. However, the combination fails to teach wherein the one or more characteristics of the VRM comprise a visibility range for one or more components of the sensing system of the AV.
On the other hand, Zhu teaches determining a density of fog and a visibility range ([0178]).
According, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify Wachter’s method to include determination of visibility range.
Doing so would provide better input for AV path control.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 15, LaChapelle teaches the method of claim 14. However, LaChapelle does not teach wherein determining the one or more characteristics of the VRM comprises determining a distance to the reference object, and wherein the reference intensity value is identified for the determined distance.
On the other hand, Zhu teaches storing laser data associated with known objects in memory. Such data including location and orientation ([00148], [00149]). Laser data points at a later time can be compared with the stored data to identify data points associated or not-associated with known objects. Additionally, Zhu teaches collecting range and intensity information objects including at different times with and without fog ([0167]). Laser data for clear environment may be stored and accessed for comparison ([0169]). Alternatively, maps of intensity of laser data per location is generated and stored for both dry and clear condition ([00170]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify LaChapelle’s method, in view of Zhu’s teach, to determine the one or more characteristics of the VRM comprises determining a distance to the reference object, and wherein the reference intensity value is identified for the determined distance.
The motivation to do so is to apply known technique to a known method for predictable result, i.e., identifying fog condition.
Regarding claim 16, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Zhu, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the reference object is a road sign or a traffic sign (Zhu, [0199], road sign as reference object).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR § 1.111(c).
US 20210033734 A1 (Hiroi) teaches various methods to determine fog density.
US 20210019537 A1 (Hiroi) teaches fog density determination with image luminance analysis.
US 20210191399 A1 (Verghese et al.) teaches adjusting vehicle sensor detection range based on weather condition.
US 10732279 B2 (Schlotterbeck) teaches detecting a solid obstacle based on reflected beam amplitude and duration.
US 20110313722 A1 (Zhu et al.) teaches method of detecting aerosol cloud for helicopters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. 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.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645