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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second 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.
Claim 7, and claim 15 dependent on it, are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 7, the clause “said predetermined value is equal, for each environment cell, to a predetermined distance threshold multiplied by the distance separating this environment cell from the particular cell” does not make sense, because multiplying two distances cannot result in another distance (in this case, the predetermined value). Clarification and correction are required. The claim is interpreted as best understood by the Examiner; it appears the predetermined value is proportional to a predetermined threshold multiplied by the distance separating this environmental cell from the particular cell.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhan et al. (US 2019/0206063).
With regard to claim 1, Zhan discloses a method of using a LIDAR device in a motor vehicle, comprising:
Emitting incident light rays from the motor vehicle toward its external environment;
Receiving returned reflected rays on a photodetector of the motor vehicle (para. [0027], acquisition device emits a laser beam outward and receives signals from stationary and moving objects, device mounted on acquisition vehicle , para. [0003])
Associating a value representing a quantity relating to the reflected light ray with each cell of the photodetector that receives a reflected light ray (associating distance related to the reflected light ray with each pixel in a frame to form point cloud data with coordinates (X, Y, and Z), Fig. 5 step 510, para.[0033] & [0036])
Determining a first descriptor comprising a first set of unique environment signatures for a selection of cells of the photodetector, the first descriptor corresponding to a first sequence for receiving reflected light rays (cluster of points corresponding to image of first object at a first distance, step (520) para. [0037])
Determining a second descriptor comprising a second set of unique environment signatures for a selection of cells of the photodetector, the second descriptor corresponding to a second sequence for receiving reflected light rays (cluster of points corresponding to image of first or second object at a second distance, step (520) para. [0037];
Identifying the environment signature that are identical in the first descriptor and the second descriptor (finding points such as the location of the center of the object, step (530) para. [0058]) ; with an environment signature of a particular cell of the photodetector being defined as a set of indicators each associated with a cell with a predetermined pattern of environment cells of a particular cell (such as all or a portion of cells defining the object relative to the center of the object, note that this is the same process as identifying potential objects by clustering locations of points in the frames, para. [0037]).
With regard to claim 2, the selection of cells for determining the first descriptor are associated with a first (stand-off) distance, and the second descriptor, the selection of cells for determining the second descriptor are associated with a second (stand-off) distance (offset in the z-axis direction corresponding to the location of the object, para. [0066]).
With regard to claim 13, the identification comprises determining identical environment signatures in the first descriptor and the second descriptor (matching characteristics, para. [0054]).
With regard to claim 14, the representative value related to the reflected light ray associated with each cell of the photodetector is the (stand-off) distance between the cell and the object (Fig. 5 step 510, para.[0033] & [0036])
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (US 2019/0206063) as applied to claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 5, Zhan does not specifically disclose that the set of indicators is formed by a set of binary digits each assigned to a cell of the predetermined pattern of environment cells. However, it was notoriously well known to those skilled in the art, e. g. optical or electrical engineers, before the effective filing date of the application, to form an indicator of some kind via a set of binary digits; the Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact. Therefore, the assigning of a set of binary digits to a cell of the predetermined pattern of environment cells would have been obvious.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Zhan discloses if the relative stand-off distance is less than a predetermined value (“an object whose location is within a reasonable range”(threshold), the second object is categorized as corresponding to the first object (para. [0053]). The environment cells measure the distance; it would have been obvious to assign a binary digit based on the distance being greater than a predetermined value, and assigning a second (different) binary digit based on the distance being less than a predetermined value.
With regard to claim 11, the method of Zhan further comprises filtering the first descriptor and filtering the second descriptor (recognized objects by clusters of points are filtered to reduce the amount of computation, para. [0039]) . It would have been obvious that the step of filtering reduced the information in the environment signatures; therefore the number of binary digits are deleted.
With regard to claim 12, Zhan does not specifically exclude selection of cells adjacent to the edge of the photodetector. The cells adjacent to the edge of a photodetector array do not have cells on every side. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, that the process of determining the first and second descriptors could not be carried out in the same way as other cells; therefore it would have been obvious to exclude selection of cells adjacent to the edge of the photodetector from this step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 8-10 are 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.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious, a method for using a LIDAR device in a motor vehicle including determining a first descriptor and a second descriptor comprising a first and second set of unique environment signatures for a selection of cells of a photodetector (array), respectively; the first descriptor and the second descriptor each determining by a first operation of determining the environment signature of the particular cell; a further operation of adding this environment signature of the particular cell to the set of unique environment signatures, if the set of unique environment signatures does not comprise any environment signature identical to this environment signature of the particular cell; or, a further operation of deleting this environment signature from the particular cell, if the set of unique environment signatures already comprises an environment signature identical to the environment signature of the particular cell. The prior art does further does not disclose or make obvious, the predetermined pattern of environment cells used to determine the environment signature of a particular cell, is made up of a predetermined number of cells according to a predetermined pattern of a relative arrangement of the environment cells relative to the particular cell. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons or all the details for allowable subject matter has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on Nov. 16, 2022 has been considered by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kasuga et al., Liu et al., and Song et al., disclose LIDAR tracking of objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645