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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-18, 20, and 22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Amendment filed 6/2/2026 (“Amendment”) is sufficient to overcome 112(b) and (d) rejections.
The Amendment is sufficient to overcome prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-13, 17, 18, and 20.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/2/2026, with respect to rejection of claim 14 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaChapelle have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of LaChapelle and Tsuji.
Claims 15, 16, and 22 are rejected. See below for detail.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 6/2/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle et al., US 20180284226 A1 (“LaChapelle”), in view of Tsuji, US 20230194720 A1 (“Tsuji”).
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
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
distorts a return light to have peak power from a target below some threshold).
However, LaChapelle fails to teach:
identifying that a subset of the plurality of return points is associated with a reference object, wherein the reference object is associated with a stored reference intensity value; 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.
On the other hand, Tsuji teaches measuring intensity data of a reference object using a Lidar in fine weather and saving the reference intensity data for later comparison ([0054]), and taking measurement of the corresponding object later and based on a reduction in the intensity data below a threshold level to determine whether the weather is bad ([0046], [0047], [0103]-[0105]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified LaChapelle’s method, in view of Tsuji’s teaching, to perform
identifying that a subset of the plurality of return points is associated with a reference object, wherein the reference object is associated with a stored reference intensity value; 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.
The motivation to do so is that a reference object with a pre-stored fine weather data will provide more consistent and more accurate bad weather condition determination.
Regarding claim 15, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Tsuji, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein determining the one or more characteristics of the VRM comprises determining a distance to the reference object ([0041]), and wherein the reference intensity value is identified for the determined distance ([0041]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle and Tsuji as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhu et al., WO2014168851 A1 (“Zhu”).
Regarding claim 16, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Tsuji, teaches the method of claim 14.
However, the combination does not teach: where in the reference object is a road sign or a traffic sign.
On the other hand, Zhu teaches using road sign or traffic sign as reference object. ([0199]; See also [0167] - [0169], which discloses tracking objects, capturing distance and intensity with laser data representing clear environment to be stored; subsequent lower intensity measurement indicates a high probability of fog).
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 LaChapelle’s method, in view of Zhu’s teaching, to use road sign or a traffic sign as a reference object.
The motivation for doing so is that such road sign is readily accessible in the outdoor environment for an autonomous vehicle (AV) and are convenient reference targets.
Regarding claim 22, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Tsuji, teaches the method of claim 14. However, the combination fails to teach wherein the reference object is at least one of a road sign, a milepost, a highway reflector, a traffic light, or a street light, and wherein the stored reference intensity value is associated with a reflectivity of the reference object stored in a memory.
On the other hand, Zhu teaches using road sign or traffic sign as reference object ([0199]; See also [0167] - [0169], which discloses tracking objects, capturing distance and intensity with laser data representing clear environment to be stored; subsequent lower intensity measurement indicates a high probability of fog). Zhu also teaches that the stored reference intensity value is associated with a reflectivity of the reference object stored in a memory ([0168], intensity value indicative of reflectivity of a tracked object; tracking object requires previous object data being saved).
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 LaChapelle’s method, in view of Zhu’s teaching, use road sign or a traffic sign as a reference object, and to store reference intensity value that is associated with a reflectivity of the reference object stored in a memory. As modified, the reference object is at least one of a road sign (Zhu, [0199]; See also [0167] - [0169]), a milepost, a highway reflector, a traffic light, or a street light, and wherein the stored reference intensity value is associated with a reflectivity of the reference object stored in a memory (Zhu, [0168] discloses intensity value indicative of reflectivity of a tracked object).
The motivation for doing so is that such road sign is readily accessible in the outdoor environment for an autonomous vehicle (AV) and are convenient reference targets. Further, since reflected light intensity depends on object reflectivity, and thus associating reference object intensity with reference object reflectivity would provide more relevant comparison of intensity impact of bad weather to that of fine weather.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights