DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, and 14 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3, and 10-12 are amended. Claims 5-9 are as previously presented. Claims 2, 4, and 13 are cancelled. Claim 14 is new.
This is a non-final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 12/5/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2020-169915 filed in Japan on 10/07/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/5/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/5/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 7 under the heading “1. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 7-8 under the heading “2. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 8-11 under the heading “3. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103”), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive. The arguments (p. 8) state that the references do not teach the newly added limitations in the independent claims. However, there are no reasoned arguments regarding any specific portions of the references. The office maintains that Zeng et al. teaches these limitations (see the mapping in the rejections under 103 below). The arguments regarding the reference of Tanaka are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of US2021/0003712A1 (Zhang et al.), as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2020/0393566A1 (Zeng et al.), US2018/0299273A1 (Cai et al.), and US2021/0405200A1 (Ding et al.).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 10, “a second threshold value” should instead read “the second threshold value”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(a) “measurement device” that receives reflected light of emitted light, in Claims 1, 11, 12,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification ¶0011 states the measurement device may be a lidar.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the scan data processing unit is configured to set one of the first threshold value and a second threshold value based on a histogram of the scan data.” That is, the phrase encompasses setting the first threshold value based on a histogram of the scan data. Per Claim 1, the “first threshold value” is the threshold used to acquire point cloud map data, as opposed to the second threshold associated with the scan data. The disclosure as originally filed (e.g. specification ¶0081-0082) recites using a histogram of the scan data in order to determine and apply a threshold to the scan data, and further recites (e.g. specification ¶0090) using a histogram of point cloud map data to determine and apply a threshold to the point cloud map data. However, the disclosure does not appear to recite the use of a histogram of the scan data in order to determine a threshold that is used for the map data, as recited in Claim 10 (for the case of the “first threshold” being set).
Therefore, the 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “wherein the scan data processing unit is configured to set one of the first threshold value and a second threshold value based on a histogram of the scan data” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the histogram of the scan data is be used to set a threshold which applies to the map data, and upon review of the specification for clarity, it is not clear how or whether this can be performed (see also the rejection under 112(a), above). The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite as it not clear whether the setting of the first threshold can be done or whether this instead uses the map data, or something else. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as any setting of a threshold based on a histogram of the scan data.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2020/0393566A1 (Zeng et al.) in view of Published Application US2021/0003712A1 (Zhang et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Zeng et al. discloses an information processing device comprising:
a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to function as (see [0110] flow chart of Figure 11 performed by localization module 260 of computing system 120 [0035, 0116] processor and instructions on machine-readable medium):
a point cloud map data acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud map data (see Figure 11, [0112] at 1104, accessing HD map with second point cloud) which includes:
high reflection intensity map data that is point cloud data including points, on a reference plane (see [0113] segmenting to obtain the map ground points),
three-dimensional space map data that is point cloud data of features existing in a three-dimensional space (see [0113] map non-ground points of 3d data):
a scan data acquisition unit configured to acquire scan data (see [0111] at 1102, receiving first point cloud) that is point cloud data measured by a measurement device of a vehicle which receives reflected light of emitted light (see [0111] from a LIDAR on a vehicle);
a scan data processing unit configured to:
generate the scan data or data obtained by filtering the scan data as three-dimensional space scan data (see [0113] segmenting (i.e. filtering) LIDAR ground points and non-ground points as three-dimensional scan data);
a matching unit configured to perform:
a first matching between the three-dimensional space map data and the three-dimensional space scan data (see [0114] matching LIDAR non-ground points to map non-ground points); and
a second matching between the high reflection intensity map data and the ground point scan data (see [0114] match LIDAR ground points to map ground points),
a position estimation unit configured to estimate a position of the vehicle based on results of the first matching and the second matching (see [0114] at 1110, determining vehicle pose by performing the matching); and
a vehicle control unit configured to control the vehicle based on the estimated position (see [0115] subsequent to 1110, employ the pose to navigate, and vehicle 150 may navigate by sending control signals to controls of the vehicle 150).
Zeng et al. further discloses that both the map data and scan data originates from lidar measurements from vehicles (see [0038, 0111] sensor data using lidar used to create maps and scan data).
Zeng et al. does not explicitly recite the high reflection intensity map data:
whose reflection intensity is equal to or larger than a first threshold value and which represents road marking paint: and
and, does not explicitly recite the scan data processing unit configured to:
generate, from the scan data, high reflection intensity scan data including points, on the reference plane, whose reflection intensity is equal to or larger than a second threshold value and which represents the road marking paint,
wherein the first threshold value is different from the second threshold value, and
the high reflection intensity scan data: indicating road marking paint.
However, Zhang et al. teaches a device in mapping for vehicle use (see e.g. [0034]), including:
the scan data processing unit configured to:
generate, from the scan data, high reflection intensity scan data including points, on the reference plane (see [0147] ground points), whose reflection intensity is equal to or larger than a second threshold value (see [0147] markings via edges which are high intensity points) and which represents the road marking paint (see [0147] ground features such as marking on the road [0178] paint),
Zhang et al. additionally teaches thresholds:
wherein the first threshold value is different from the second threshold value (see [0147] The system may have to use different thresholds of intensity difference based on the type of surface and material on which the edge is identified), and
the high reflection intensity scan data: indicating road marking paint (see [0147, 0178]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the processing of the scan data of Zeng et al. to use the processing technique as taught by Zhang et al. The combination would result in the map data of Zeng et al. then being high reflection intensity map data exceeding an intensity threshold and representing road marking paint, because it is disclosed in Zeng et al. that the sensor data is used to create the map. Furthermore, the combination would result in the use of different thresholds for the map data and scan data, as different thresholds are used based on the type of surface and material per Zhang et al. [0147] (i.e. the map therefore including multiple thresholds for various surfaces and materials while the vehicle uses a single threshold at any given moment based on the live scan data). Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy by ensuring proper calibration of the vehicle at all times (see Zhang et al. [0146]).
Regarding Claim 3, Zeng et al. discloses the information processing device according to claim 1 wherein the matching unit is configured to perform the matching in one of the first matching and the second matching based on a Point to Point algorithm (see [0114] matching using ICP algorithm, and see [0098] point to point form of the algorithm).
Regarding Claim 5, Zeng et al. further discloses the first and second matchings (see [0114]) and matching algorithms including a Point to Plane algorithm (see [0099] point to plane variant) and a Point to Point algorithm (see [0098]).
Zeng et al. does not explicitly recite the information processing device according to claim 1 wherein the matching unit is configured to perform the first matching based on a Point to Plane algorithm and performs the second matching based on a Point to Point algorithm.
However, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try use of the Point to Plane algorithm for the first matching and Point to Point algorithm for the second matching, with a reasonable expectation of success, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. using only Point to Plane or only Point to Point or using both of the algorithms, each for a different matching, resulting in four possible solutions). One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with the motivation of finding the combination yielding the best matching result or desired balance of matching accuracy and computational speed or efficiency.
Regarding Claim 7, Zeng et al. discloses the information processing device according to claim 1
wherein the reference plane includes a road surface (see Figure 7, [0085-0086, 0107] ground surface as road).
Regarding Claim 8, Zeng et al. discloses the information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the scan data acquisition unit is configured to acquire the scan data measured by a sensor that receives the reflected light of the light emitted therefrom (see [0111] scan data from LIDAR mounted on vehicle).
Regarding Claim 10, Zeng et al. does not explicitly recite the information processing device according to Claim 1,
wherein the scan data processing unit is configured to set one of the first threshold value and a second threshold value based on a histogram of the scan data in terms of the reflection intensity.
However, Zhang et al. discloses the device as above,
wherein the scan data processing unit is configured to set one of the first threshold value and a second threshold value based on a histogram of the scan data in terms of the reflection intensity (see [0147] histogram of intensity for the ground points… use the histogram to determine the threshold which can be used for determining edges based on intensity differences).
The motivation to combine Zeng et al. and Zhang et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Claim 11 pertains to a method corresponding to the functions recited in Claim 1. Claim 12 pertains to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claim 11. Claims 11 and 12 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 1, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, Zeng et al. further discloses
point cloud map data, which indicates a three-dimensional position and a reflection intensity for each point (see [0112] second 3D point cloud in HD map, [0045] reflected pulses measured, i.e. indicative of intensity above zero), and
scan data, which indicates a three-dimensional position and a reflection intensity for each point (see [0111] first 3D point cloud from LIDAR [0045] reflected pulses measured, i.e. indicative of intensity above zero),
Zeng et al. does not explicitly recite the information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the point cloud map data acquisition unit is configured to make a first histogram of reflection intensities of point cloud map data, and set the first threshold value based on the first histogram, and
wherein the scan data processing unit is configured to make a second histogram of the reflection intensities of the scan data, and set the second threshold value based on the second histogram.
However, Zhang et al. discloses the device as above,
wherein the point cloud map data acquisition unit is configured to make a first histogram of reflection intensities of point cloud map data, and set the first threshold value based on the first histogram (see [0147] use the histogram to determine the threshold which can be used for determining edges based on intensity differences – for the LIDAR data which is saved to the map per the combination with Zeng et al. in the rejection of Claim 1), and
wherein the scan data processing unit is configured to make a second histogram of the reflection intensities of the scan data, and set the second threshold value based on the second histogram (see [0147] use the histogram to determine the threshold which can be used for determining edges based on intensity differences – and [0147] different thresholds of intensity difference based on the type of surface and material).
The motivation to combine Zeng et al. and Zhang et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2020/0393566A1 (Zeng et al.) in view of Published Application US2021/0003712A1 (Zhang et al.), further in view of Publication US2018/0299273A1 (Cai et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Zeng et al. discloses wherein the matching unit is configured to set weights for the first matching and the second matching (see [0114] higher weight to non-ground matching than ground matching), and
matched points of the three-dimensional space scan data in the first matching, and matched points of the high reflection intensity scan data in the second matching (see [0114]).
Zeng et al. does not explicitly recite the information processing device according to claim 1 wherein the matching unit is configured to set weights for the first matching and the second matching based on:
a number of matched points of the three-dimensional space scan data in the first matching and
a number of matched points of the high reflection intensity scan data in the second matching.
However, Cai et al. teaches a technique to set weights for matching of point clouds (see [0011] laser point cloud, matching projection area with map area),
based on the number of matched points of a respective matching (see [0011], a number of laser points corresponding to the projection area in the map grids as a weight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the weights of the first and second matching in Zeng et al. to correspond to number of matching points, as taught by Cai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy of positioning by utilizing weighted averaging of techniques (see Cai et al., [0004, 0011]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2020/0393566A1 (Zeng et al.) in view of Published Application US2021/0003712A1 (Zhang et al.), further in view of Published Application US2021/0405200A1 (Ding et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Zeng et al. does not explicitly recite the information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the matching unit is configured to calculate a parameter for converting a coordinate system of the scan data into a coordinate system of the point cloud map data.
However, Ding et al. teaches a technique in matching point clouds (see [0082]),
wherein the matching unit (see [0035]) is configured to calculate a parameter for converting a coordinate system of the scan data into a coordinate system of the point cloud map data (see [0082], necessary to convert trajectory of the point clouds to a global coordinate system through GPS data (a calculated parameter for conversion) and use a pose graph for the fusing (matching)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the matching of Zeng et al. to use a transformation of coordinate system as taught by Ding et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of further optimizing the computation and speed of positioning (see Ding et al., [0005, 0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669