DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 07/07/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims1 and 19 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 13-17, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described in claims, specifically claims 1 and 19 e.g. “determining whether the sensor data corresponding to the object region is spatially aligned with the object region in the imaged image based on a mapping between a coordinate system of the rangefinding sensor and a coordinate system of the imaged image;”, the closest the disclosure disclose “a three-dimensional highly accurate map created using a technology such as simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM)”, see [0070] and “The conversion unit 341 converts the point cloud data that is the data in an xyz three-dimensional coordinate system obtained by the LiDAR 331 into a camera coordinate system of the camera 311, and supplies the converted point cloud data to the extraction unit 342.” and “In step S103, the extraction unit 642 sets, on the basis of the object, an extraction condition of the point cloud data corresponding to the object region of the object recognized in the imaged image by the first information processing unit 20 among the point cloud data converted into the camera coordinate system ”, [0227]of current application PgPub. The specification does not demonstrate that “determining whether the sensor data corresponding to the object region is spatially aligned with the object region in the imaged image based on a mapping between a coordinate system of the rangefinding sensor and a coordinate system of the imaged image” and applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed, i.e. about to fail. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV." For Examining purpose, the Examiner considered such as the point cloud data converted into the camera coordinate system as a fuse data.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for being dependent upon a rejected base claims.
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.
Claims1, 4-9, 13-17, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claims 1 and 19 recite the limitations:” spatially aligned with the object region”. The term “spatially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “spatially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification only cites “the point cloud data converted into the camera coordinate system”, [0227] of current application PgPub and which is best understood by the Examiner.
Moreover, claims 1 and 19 cites “in a case where only a portion of the sensor data ”. It is not clear what “in a case where only” refers too. Is it part of claim limitation or alternate situation. Therefore, claims are indefinite and should be clarify For Examining purpose, the term is to be considered as alternate.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 19 cites “performing an operation control based upon the sensor data”. It is not clear which “senor data” refers too. Is it “sensor data corresponding to an object region including the object” or “excluding, from the extraction target, sensor data corresponding to positions” or “excluding, from the extraction target, the sensor data corresponding to a region overlapping”. Therefore, claims are indefinite.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-9, 13-17, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1, 4-9, 13-17, 19 and 21-22 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1, 3-9 and 13-17 and 19, 21-22 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-9, 13-17 and 21
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of extracts sensor data corresponding to an object region.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory storing a program, and
at least one processor configured to execute the program to perform operations comprising:
extracting, on a basis of an object recognized in an imaged image obtained by a camera, sensor data corresponding to an object region including the object in the imaged image among the sensor data obtained by a range finding sensor;
setting an extraction condition of the sensor data on a basis of the object having been recognized;
determining whether the sensor data corresponding to the object region is spatially aligned with the object region in the imaged image based on a mapping between a coordinate system of the rangefinding sensor and a coordinate system of the imaged image;
in a case where only a portion of the sensor data corresponding to the object region is spatially aligned with the object region based on the mapping, setting, as an extraction target, only the portion of the sensor data that is spatially aligned with the object region;
excluding, from the extraction target, sensor data corresponding to positions that are not spatially aligned with the object region in the imaged image;
excluding, from the extraction target, the sensor data corresponding to a region overlapping another object region for another object in the object region; and
performing an operation control based upon the sensor data.
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “setting an extraction condition [..]; determining whether the sensor data corresponding to the object region [..]; setting, as an extraction target, only the portion of the sensor data [..];excluding, from the extraction target performing an operation control[..];excluding, from the extraction target, the sensor data corresponding to a region overlapping[..]; performing an operation [..] ” are mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment or evaluation) and /or mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The first additional element is “image obtained by a camera; extracting, on a basis of an object recognized in an imaged image obtained by a camera, sensor data corresponding to an object region including the object in the imaged image among the sensor data obtained by a rangefinding sensor ” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of using a generic system with generic components and obtaining data, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “An information processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing a program, and at least one processor configured to execute the program to perform operations comprising” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component with generic sensor as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
The 3rd additional element is “sensor data corresponding to image among the sensor data obtained by a ranefinding sensor” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of using a generic system with generic components and obtaining data, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, 4th additional first element is “an operation control based upon the sensor data” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant post-solution activity and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, four “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the three “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claims camera, ragefinding device, processor, memory”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 4-9, 13-17 and 21
Dependent claims 3-9 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 3-9 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
4. excluding, from an the extraction target, the sensor data in which a difference between a speed of the object having been recognized and a speed calculated on a basis of a time-series change of the sensor data is larger than a predetermined speed threshold.(abstract idea: combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper)).
5. wherein the operations further comprise: excluding, from the extraction target, the sensor data in which a distance to the object having been recognized is larger than a predetermined distance threshold. (abstract idea: combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper))
6. the operations further comprise: setting the distance threshold in accordance with the object having been recognized. (abstract idea: a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper))
7. the camera and the rangefinding sensor are mounted on a moving body,(generic data collection elements of vehicle control system: which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)). ) and the operations further comprise changing the distance threshold in accordance with a moving speed of the moving body(abstract idea: a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper)).
8. the operations further comprise: in a case where the object region is larger than a predetermined area, setting only sensor data corresponding to a vicinity of a center of the object region as an the extraction target. (abstract idea: a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper)).
9. in a case where the object region is smaller than a predetermined area, setting sensor data corresponding to an entirety of the object region as the extraction target (abstract idea: combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper)).
. 13. the operations further comprise setting, as an the extraction target, sensor data of a plurality of frames corresponding to the object region in accordance with weather(This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering)).
14. the operations further comprise: comparing the sensor data with distance information obtained by sensor fusion processing based on the imaged image and other sensor data(abstract idea: a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper)).
15. the operations further comprise: performing sensor fusion processing based on the imaged image and other sensor data; and correcting distance information obtained by the sensor fusion processing on a basis of the sensor data(This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering)).
16. wherein the rangefinding sensor includes aLiDAR, and the sensor data is point cloud data(This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering)).
17. the rangefinding sensor includes a millimeter wave radar, and the sensor data is distance information indicating a distance to the object(generic data collection elements of vehicle control system: which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
21. the operations further comprise: determining, for sensor data corresponding to the object region, whether a spatial correspondence between the sensor data and the object region in the imaged image satisfies a positional consistency condition; and in a case where only a portion of the sensor data corresponding to the object region satisfies the positional consistency condition, setting, as the extraction target, only the sensor data corresponding to a spatially consistent portion of the object region(abstract idea: combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper)).
Claims 19 and 22
Claims 19 and 22 and contain language similar to claims 1 and 21 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 19 and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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) 1, 13-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATO et al (US 2021/0403015) in views of Liu et al.(US2021/0181745)(best understood by the Examiner based on 112 rejection).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19: Kato teaches an information processing apparatus comprising(figs.17-18):
a memory storing a program, and
at least one processor configured to execute the program to perform operations comprising:
extracting (2450a: fig.17) on a basis of an object (P4) recognized in an imaged (s1: fig.18) image obtained by a camera(243a: fig.18), sensor data corresponding to an object region including the object in the imaged image among the sensor data obtained (s2: fig. 18) by a rangefinding sensor (244a: fig. 18);
setting an extraction condition of the sensor data on a basis of the object having been recognized([0410]-[0415]);
determining whether the sensor data corresponding to the object region is spatially aligned with the object region in the imaged image based on a mapping between a coordinate system of the rangefinding sensor and a coordinate system of the imaged image(fuse the pieces of surrounding environment information, detection area S1 of the camera 43 a, the detection area S2 of the LiDAR unit 44 a, and the detection area S3 of the millimeter wave radar 45 a as shown in FIG. 4. For example, the surrounding environment information If may include information on an attribute of a target object: [0247], [0430]);
(as alternate) in a case where only a portion of the sensor data corresponding to the object region is spatially aligned with the object region based on the mapping, setting, as an extraction target, only the portion of the sensor data that is spatially aligned with the object region(fusing module 2450 a generates fused surrounding environment information If by fusing the pieces of surrounding environment information I1, I2, I3. The surrounding environment information If may include information on a target object existing at an outside of the vehicle 201: [0411]-[0415], [0428], [0429], [0431]);
excluding, from the extraction target(P4: fig.18), the sensor data corresponding to a region overlapping another object (P3: fig.18)region (Sy: fig.18) for another object in the object region (e.g. the detection area S2 excluding the overlapping areas Sx, Sy: [0411]-[0415]; [0428]-[0431]);
KATO silent about excluding, from the extraction target, sensor data corresponding to positions that are not spatially aligned with the object region in the imaged image; and performing an operation control based upon the sensor data.
However, Liu further teaches setting an extraction condition of the sensor data on a basis of the object having been recognized([0139]);
determining whether the sensor data corresponding to the object region is spatially aligned with the object region in the imaged image based on a mapping between a coordinate system of the rangefinding sensor and a coordinate system of the imaged image (Generally, the computer system is configured to obtain LiDAR data points for an environment around an autonomous vehicle, project the LiDAR data points onto image data, detect a target object in the image data, extract a subset of the LiDAR data points that corresponds to the detected target object, register the detected target object in map data if the extracted subset of the LiDAR data points satisfies registration criteria, and navigate the autonomous vehicle in the environment according to the map data: abstract, [0004]);
(as alternate) in a case where only a portion of the sensor data corresponding to the object region is spatially aligned with the object region based on the mapping, setting, as an extraction target, only the portion of the sensor data that is spatially aligned with the object region ([0139]); and
In addition, Liu teaches excluding, from the extraction target, sensor data corresponding to positions that are not spatially aligned with the object region in the imaged image(identify objects and annotating the presence of the objects in the image data: [0037], [0110], [0119]);
performing an operation control based upon the sensor data(1710-1712: fig. 17 and fig. 13; a determination that the extracted subset of the LiDAR data points that corresponds to the detected target object (e.g., 1316 or 1318) satisfies registration criteria (e.g., the extracted subset of LiDAR data points have a location or distance (e.g., depth) value (e.g., relative to a location of AV 100) that is less than a location or distance threshold value), the system (e.g., 1300) registers (e.g., automatically), using the processing circuit, the detected target object (e.g., a representation or indication of the detected target object (e.g., 1600 a-1600 e)) in map data (e.g., three-dimensional map data) (e.g., including a representation of the detected target object in the map data without requiring manual annotation of the map data). the system (e.g., 1300) navigates (e.g., controls operation (e.g., driving) of the vehicle), using a control circuit (e.g., control module 406), the vehicle in the environment according to the map data:[0137]-[0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of KATO, excluding, from the extraction target, sensor data corresponding to positions that are not spatially aligned with the object region in the imaged image; and performing an operation control based upon the sensor data, as taught by Liu, so as to erforming automated object detection on the merged data to provide the map data by including an indication of the objects detected and associated positional data for the objects improve and it improves the accuracy and efficiency of object detection and provides additional details for the objects detected.
Regarding Claim 13: Kato further teaches setting, as an extraction target, sensor data or a plurality of frames corresponding to the object region in accordance with weather([0270][0527]-[0530]).
Regarding Claim 14: Kato further teaches comparing the sensor data with distance information obtained by sensor fusion processing based on the imaged image and other sensor data (a detection area Sf that is a combination of the detection area S1 of the camera 43 a, the detection area S2 of the LiDAR unit 44 a, and the detection area S3 of the millimeter wave radar 45 a as shown in FIG. 4. For example, the surrounding environment information If may include information on an attribute of a target object, a position of the target object with respect to the vehicle 1, a distance between the vehicle 1 and the target object and/or a velocity of the target object with respect to the vehicle 1. [0247])
Regarding Claim 15: Kato further teaches performing sensor fusion processing based on the imaged image and other sensor data (As shown in FIG. 12, the surrounding environment information If may include information on a target object existing at an outside of the vehicle 101 in a detection area Sf that is a combination of the detection area S1 for the camera 143 a, the detection area S2 for the LiDAR unit 144 a, and the detection area S3 for the millimeter wave radar 145 a. For example, the surrounding environment information If may include information on an attribute of a target object, a position of the target object with respect to the vehicle 101, a distance between the vehicle 101 and the target object and/or a speed of the target object with respect to the vehicle 101. The surrounding environment information fusing module 1450 a transmits the surrounding environment information If to the vehicle control unit 103: [0334]);
and correcting (2460: fig. 17) that corrects distance information obtained by the sensor fusion processing on a basis of the sensor data (system 202 can be provided in which the recognition accuracy with which the surrounding environment of the vehicle 201 is recognized can be improved by making use of the information on the detection accuracies of the sensors: [0394]; the surrounding environment information identification module 2400 a is configured to identify the surrounding environment of the vehicle 201 based on the detection data of the sensors (the camera 243 a, the LiDAR unit 244 a, the millimeter wave radar 245 a) and the detection accuracy of the sensors: [00396])
Regarding Claim 16: Kato further teaches the rangefinding sensor includes a MiDAR(244a: fig. 17; ), and the sensor data is point cloud data(cloud server: [0405]).
Regarding Claim 17: Kato further teaches the rangefinding sensor includes a millimeter wave radar(245a: fig. 17), and the sensor data is distance information indicating a distance to the object([0311]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATO et al (US 2021/0403015) in view of Liu, further in view of CHIBA et al .(US 2018/0361854)
Regarding claim 4. KATO further teaches the target speed and the target angular velocity of the vehicle 1 are calculated ([0084])
The modified KATO silent about excluding, from an extraction target, the sensor data in which a difference between a speed of the object having been recognized and a speed calculated on a basis of a time-series change of the sensor data is larger than a predetermined speed threshold.
However, CHIBA teaches excluding, from an extraction target, the sensor data in which a difference between a speed of the object having been recognized and a speed calculated on a basis of a time-series(fig. 6) change of the sensor data (relative speed: [0014]; [0040]-[0042], [0047]) is larger than a predetermined speed threshold (relative speed exceeds a threshold, excludes the upper structure from the object: [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of KATO, excluding, from an extraction target, the sensor data in which a difference between a speed of the object having been recognized and a speed calculated on a basis of a time-series change of the sensor data is larger than a predetermined speed threshold, as taught by CHIBA, so as to reduce a sense of discomfort and uneasiness of a driver and reliability to the driving assistance system is further improved.
Claim(s) 5-9 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATO et al (US 2021/0403015) in view of Liu, further in view of Schamp et al.(US2009/0010495).
Regarding claim 5. The modified KATO silent about the excluding, from an extraction target, the sensor data in which a distance to the object having been recognized is larger than a predetermined distance threshold.
However, Schamp teaches excluding, from an extraction target, the sensor data in which a distance to the object having been recognized is larger than a predetermined distance threshold (range-filtered image 416 by eliminating objects that are farther than a given maximum distance:[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of KATO, excluding, from an extraction target, the sensor data in which a distance to the object having been recognized is larger than a predetermined distance threshold, as taught by Schamp, so as to identify vulnerable road user by protection system incorporated in vehicle to protect vulnerable road user, such as pedestrian, and cyclist, from collision with vehicle.
Regarding claim 6. Schamp further teaches wherein setting the distance threshold in accordance with the object having been recognized(a given maximum distance:[0098])..
Regarding claim 7. KATO teaches the camera and the rangefinding sensor are mounted on a moving body (figs. 2-3),
The modified KATO silent about changing the distance threshold in accordance with a moving speed of the moving body.
However, Schamp teaches changing the distance threshold in accordance with a moving speed of the moving body (fig. 10a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the modified invention to the invention of KATO, changing the distance threshold in accordance with a moving speed of the moving body, as taught by Schamp, so as to identify vulnerable road user by protection system incorporated in vehicle to protect vulnerable road user, such as pedestrian, and cyclist, from collision with vehicle.
Regarding claim 8. The modified KATO silent about in a case where the object region is larger than a predetermined area, setting only sensor data corresponding to a vicinity of a center of the object region as an extraction target.
However, Schamp teaches in a case where the object region is larger than a predetermined area(fig. 46a), setting only sensor data corresponding to a vicinity of a center of the object region as an extraction target(fig. 46 b; [0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of KATO, in a case where the object region is larger than a predetermined area, setting only sensor data corresponding to a vicinity of a center of the object region as an extraction target, as taught by Schamp, so as to identify vulnerable road user by protection system incorporated in vehicle to protect vulnerable road user, such as pedestrian, and cyclist, from collision with vehicle.
Regarding claim 9. Schamp further teaches in a case where the object region is smaller than a predetermined area (car: fig.19a), setting sensor data corresponding to an entirety of the object region as an extraction target (fig.19b-c; 424: fig. 25; [0105];[0112]-[0113] ).
Regarding claims 21-22. Modified KATO silent about the operations further comprise: determining, for sensor data corresponding to the object region, whether a spatial correspondence between the sensor data and the object region in the imaged image satisfies a positional consistency condition; and in a case where only a portion of the sensor data corresponding to the object region satisfies the positional consistency condition, setting, as the extraction target, only the sensor data corresponding to a spatially consistent portion of the object region.
However, Schamp teaches the operations further comprise: determining, for sensor data corresponding to the object region, whether a spatial correspondence between the sensor data and the object region in the imaged image satisfies a positional consistency condition(figs 27-29; he composite range map image 82: [0115],[0117], [0124]); and in a case where only a portion of the sensor data corresponding to the object region satisfies the positional consistency condition, setting, as the extraction target, only the sensor data corresponding to a spatially consistent portion of the object region(figs 27-29; he composite range map image 82: [0115],[0117], [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of KATO, the operations further comprise: determining, for sensor data corresponding to the object region, whether a spatial correspondence between the sensor data and the object region in the imaged image satisfies a positional consistency condition; and in a case where only a portion of the sensor data corresponding to the object region satisfies the positional consistency condition, setting, as the extraction target, only the sensor data corresponding to a spatially consistent portion of the object region, as taught by Schamp, so as to identify vulnerable road user by protection system incorporated in vehicle to protect vulnerable road user, such as pedestrian, and cyclist, from collision with vehicle.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1 and 19, the applicant did not agree with it. see pages 5-6. Applicant Argus that “The Claims Are Not Directed to an abstract idea; The Claims Merely Involve a Judicial Exception; The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application”, see, pages 7-11.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because current claim amendment also directed to details a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or mental evaluation/judgement). Therefore, the (italicized) limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic device with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect 103 rejection, specially claims 1 and 19, cited prior art does not teach the amended limitations.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Kato in view of Liu teaches all the limitations including the amended limitations, see the updated rejections above. As Such 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Shiba et al. (US 20200301019) disclose the terrain map information 230 indicates a horizontal position (i.e., latitude and longitude) and a height (i.e., altitude) of each point of the road surface RS, wherein the horizontal position and the height are associated with each other. The terrain map database 30 may be stored in a predetermined memory device installed on the vehicle 1, or may be stored in a management server outside the vehicle 1. FIG. 4 is a conceptual diagram indicating objects that are recognized by the object recognition processing according to the present embodiment, in the object recognition processing, an object being a target of tracking is recognized. Such the tracking target is exemplified by another vehicle, a pedestrian, a sign board, a pylon, a roadside structure, a fallen object, and so forth. In the present embodiment, a fallen object 3 on the road surface RS and a tracking target 4 other than the fallen object 3 are considered separately. In general, the fallen object 3 exists only in the vicinity of the road surface RS, and a height of the fallen object 3 is significantly lower than that of the tracking target 4. The object recognition processing according to the present embodiment distinguishes between the fallen object 3 and the tracking target 4
b) Li et al (US 20190180467) disclose LiDAR device 420. During operation, the LiDAR device 420 may rotate and use the laser beam to scan the surrounding environment of the vehicle, thereby generating a LiDAR point cloud image according to the reflected laser beam. Since the LiDAR device 420 rotates and scans along limited heights of the vehicle's surrounding environment, the LiDAR point cloud image measures the 360° environment surrounding the vehicle between the predetermined heights of the vehicle.
c) Pink et al. (US 20170023678) disclose . The lateral LIDAR sensor is tilted about its transverse axis with respect to the horizontal, so the detection area of the lateral LIDAR sensor detects the remote upper spatial area at a predefined height above the vehicle using its part which is at the front in the direction of travel.
d) Neumann et al. (US 20040105573) disclose The range sensor information can provide a clear footprint of a building's position and height information. This global geometric information can be used to determine a building's geo-location and isolate it from the surrounding terrain.Identification of buildings in the range sensor information can be based on height. For example, applying a height threshold to the reconstructed 3D mesh data can create an approximate building mask. The mask can be applied to filter all the mesh points, and those masked points can be extracted as building points. In addition to height, area coverage can also be taken into consideration in this identification process. Moreover, the height and area variables used can be set based on information known about the region being modeled.
e) Weinberg (US 10229596) disclose a lidar system can be provided for measuring a clearance of overhead infrastructure, such as a bridge or overpass. The lidar system can alert a vehicle driver or automatically brake the vehicle if the available clearance is smaller than a height of the vehicle. The lidar system can emit rays of light over a range of angles towards a target region where the rays of light can have a vertical span. The lidar system can then receive rays of light reflected or scattered from the target region and can determine a distance traveled by the rays of light by determining a round trip travel time of the rays. A clearance of the overhead infrastructure can then be determined using geometric relationships.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights