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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: a) In claim 10 line 6, please change: "a clusters extending in three spatial directions" to
--a cluster extending in three spatial directions--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8-14 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.
a) Claim 8 lines 8-11 (and similarly in claim 14) recites "marking further reflections following the first reflections of the laser pulse as false-positive detections if a distance evaluation of reflections from the clustered first reflections indicates that the laser pulse is being reflected at a reflecting surface that is at least approximately homogeneous." The term “approximately homogeneous” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately homogeneous” 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. It is not clear what property of the surface is being analyzed as being homogeneous, or how much property values or characteristics must be similar in order to be characterized as "approximately" homogeneous. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets any object having a continuous surface as being "approximately homogeneous" or belonging to itself (i.e., of the same kind). Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
b) Claim 9 lines 2-3 recites "if the further reflections of the cluster occur at a larger distance than the first reflections." However, claim 8 only defines clustering the first reflections, and there is no teaching for clustering the further reflections following the first reflections. Thus, it is not clear what is meant by "the further reflections of the cluster" as there is only one clustering defined for only the first reflections. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
c) Claim 11 lines 1-2 recites "wherein the cluster with the planar surfaces and the cluster with a slightly curved surface…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the cluster with a slightly curved surface," as there is no previous teaching in claim 10 or claim 8 (on which claim 11 depends from) for any "cluster with a slightly curved surface." There is a previous recitation for "a cluster with curved surfaces," but it is not clear if "the cluster with a slightly curved surface" is meant to be the same as "a cluster with curved surfaces." Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Dependent claims 9-13 depend from claim 8 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 8-13 are to a process and claim 14 is to a machine. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical calculations:
8. A method for determining false-positive detections of a lidar sensor in a scanning process of surroundings of a vehicle, the method comprising:
checking, for every laser pulse reflected back to the lidar sensor in a scan range of the lidar sensor, whether the laser pulse is reflected back several times in different distances;
clustering first reflections of the laser pulse that is reflected back several times; and
then marking further reflections following the first reflections of the laser pulse as false-positive detections if a distance evaluation of reflections from the clustered first reflections indicates that the laser pulse is being reflected at a reflecting surface that is at least approximately homogeneous.
14. A device for determining false-positive detections of a lidar sensor in a scanning process of surroundings of a vehicle, wherein the device is configured to:
check, for every laser pulse reflected back to the lidar sensor in a scan range of the lidar sensor, whether the laser pulse is reflected back several times in different distances;
cluster first reflections of the laser pulse that is reflected back several times; and
then mark further reflections following the first reflections of the laser pulse as false-positive detections if a distance evaluation of reflections from the clustered first reflections indicates that the laser pulse is being reflected at a reflecting surface that is at least approximately homogeneous.
A person can visually look at a record of a series of laser pulse measurements and mentally determine whether the laser pulse is reflected back several times in different distances. A person can mentally perform a data evaluation to cluster or categorize first reflections of the laser pulse that are reflected back several times. Alternatively, the clustering process could be a mathematical-based calculation if the analysis requires more advanced numerical processing. A person can perform mentally, or on pen and paper, the marking or identifying of further reflections following the first reflections of the laser pulse as false-positive detections, by a mental process of comparing the distance evaluation of reflections from the clustered first reflections to a profile that indicates whether the laser pulse is being reflected at a reflecting surface that is at least approximately homogeneous. In summary, these bolded limitations amount to a series of mental process steps (and/or mathematical calculations) to evaluate, organize, and compare data to determine an additional informational-based property of the measured data (such as whether the data represents a false-positive detection or not).
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the recitation of "a lidar sensor in a scanning process of surroundings of a vehicle," and "every laser pulse reflected back to the lidar sensor in a scan range of the lidar sensor" amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as such data must be gathered in any case; and (2) the recitation of a device and the device being configured amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. The recitations of a lidar sensor in a scanning process of surroundings of a vehicle and every laser pulse reflected back to the lidar sensor in a scan range of the lidar sensor, are limitations that do not add something significantly more because they amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and do not describe any gathering of data in an unconventional way. The MPEP states that when “whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”, the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output (MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)). The recitations of a device and the device being configured, are limitations that do not add something significantly more because they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.)
Dependent claims 9-13 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of a mental process, as they describe further mental process evaluation steps to categorize or recognize data attributes based on properties of the data.
5. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements of a machine for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated determination of false-positives for a further applied use (besides mere outputting) to drive a change in operation, transformation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process, could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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)(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.
7. Claim(s) 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allen et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0103055, hereinafter "Allen").
In regards to claim 8, Allen teaches a method for determining false-positive detections of a lidar sensor in a scanning process (Allen paragraph [0045] teaches a method for determining false points (false-positive detections) of a LiDAR system during a light source firing sequence (scanning process)) of surroundings of a vehicle (Allen paragraph [0055] teaches where the LiDAR sensor is used for obstacle detection of the surroundings of an autonomous vehicle), the method comprising:
checking, for every laser pulse reflected back to the lidar sensor in a scan range of the lidar sensor (Allen paragraph [0004] teaches checking for every return light (laser) pulse that has been reflected off one or more objects back to the LiDAR detector, and Allen paragraph [0032] teaches scanning at a scanning range of the light source of the LiDAR), whether the laser pulse is reflected back several times in different distances (Allen paragraph [0030] teaches determining whether the laser pulse is reflected back from the object several times at different distances to calculate multiple times of flights, in order to construct a three-dimensional image of the reflected object based on multiple measured distances from the LiDAR sensor to various points on the surface of the object);
clustering first reflections of the laser pulse that is reflected back several times (Allen paragraphs [0004] and [0030] teach clustering the first reflections of the laser pulse that are reflected back several times into a point cloud (cluster), according to times of flight, where the point cloud includes a set of points representing the reflections from one or more surfaces of the one or more objects); and then
marking further reflections following the first reflections of the laser pulse as false-positive detections if a distance evaluation of reflections from the clustered first reflections indicates that the laser pulse is being reflected at a reflecting surface that is at least approximately homogeneous (Allen paragraphs [0037] and [0039] teach marking further reflected light pulses (which may come from interference) as detected false points (false-positives) based on a distance evaluation of reflections from an object 390 (e.g., a person) that is approximately homogeneous, where a false point in the three-dimensional point cloud created by the first LiDAR sensor may appear to be closer than what the object actually is, and where such false points may tend to appear close together spatially as groups to form a ghost object; Allen Figs. 6A and 6B teach determining false-positive detections of a ghost object 630 or 660 at distances apart from the clustered first reflections from an approximately homogeneous real-world object 620 or 650).
In regards to claim 14, Allen teaches a device for determining false-positive detections of a lidar sensor in a scanning process (Allen paragraph [0045] teaches a system for determining false points (false-positive detections) of a LiDAR during a light source firing sequence (scanning process)) of surroundings of a vehicle, wherein the device is configured to:
check, for every laser pulse reflected back to the lidar sensor in a scan range of the lidar sensor (Allen paragraph [0004] teaches checking for every return light (laser) pulse that has been reflected off one or more objects back to the LiDAR detector, and Allen paragraph [0032] teaches scanning at a scanning range of the light source of the LiDAR), whether the laser pulse is reflected back several times in different distances (Allen paragraph [0030] teaches determining whether the laser pulse is reflected back from the object several times at different distances to calculate multiple times of flights, in order to construct a three-dimensional image of the reflected object based on multiple measured distances from the LiDAR sensor to various points on the surface of the object);
cluster first reflections of the laser pulse that is reflected back several times (Allen paragraphs [0004] and [0030] teach clustering the first reflections of the laser pulse that are reflected back several times into a point cloud (cluster), according to times of flight, where the point cloud includes a set of points representing the reflections from one or more surfaces of the one or more objects); and then
mark further reflections following the first reflections of the laser pulse as false-positive detections if a distance evaluation of reflections from the clustered first reflections indicates that the laser pulse is being reflected at a reflecting surface that is at least approximately homogeneous (Allen paragraphs [0037] and [0039] teach marking further reflected light pulses (which may come from interference) as detected false points (false-positives) based on a distance evaluation of reflections from an object 390 (e.g., a person) that is approximately homogeneous, where a false point in the three-dimensional point cloud created by the first LiDAR sensor may appear to be closer than what the object actually is, and where such false points may tend to appear close together spatially as groups to form a ghost object; Allen Figs. 6A and 6B teach determining false-positive detections of a ghost object 630 or 660 at distances apart from the clustered first reflections from an approximately homogeneous real-world object 620 or 650).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0103055, hereinafter "Allen").
In regards to claim 9, Allen teaches the method as explained in the rejection of claim 8. Allen fails to expressly teach wherein the further reflections are then only marked as false-positive detections if the further reflections of the cluster occur at a larger distance than the first reflections.
However, Allen paragraph [0048] teaches where applying random temporal dithering to the light source firing sequence causes false points of a ghost object in a point cloud to be broken up into spatially scattered and isolated points, where the spatial extent of the "scatter" may depend on the range of temporal dithering, which would cause false points of the ghost object to be scattered up to 30 meters either closer or farther away. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that further reflections of the ghost object may be tailored by a user to appear closer or farther depending on the range amount of temporal dithering applied during the firing of the laser pulse. Therefore, it would only be a matter of user preference to specify choosing only further reflections that occur at a larger distance (farther away), depending on how a user prefers to isolate out the false positives in the image.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 10 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Allen et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0103055) fails to anticipate or render obvious the method further comprising: differentiating a surface of the cluster between a cluster with planar surfaces, a cluster with curved surfaces, a cluster extending in exactly one spatial direction, and a clusters extending in three spatial directions, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. There is no such teaching or motivation to differentiate between clusters from these specific types of surfaces.
Dependent claims 11-13 depend from claim 10 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 10.
Pertinent Art
12. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Slutsky et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0041522) discloses Method and Apparatus Cross Segment Detection in a LIDAR System. C. Stainvas Olshansky et al. (US Pat Pub. 2016/0178802) discloses Road Surface Reflectivity Detection by LIDAR Sensor.
E. Felix (US Pat. No. 10,629,072) discloses LIDAR and Vision Vehicle Sensing. F. Bhaskaran et al. (US Pat. No. 11,500,075) discloses Identifying and/or Removing Ghost Detections from LIDAR Sensor Output.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 1/7/2026