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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 02/03/2023. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are/is: "means" in claim 12.
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
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 § 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.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 12 is directed to a “program” for controlling an information processing device. A program, by itself, constitutes software per se and is not a statutory process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
While the claim recites functional language describing control of distance measurement units, the claim does not recite a computer-implemented method, a computer-readable medium storing instructions, or a machine configured to perform the recited functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slobodyanyuk et al. (US 20170082737 A1, “Slobodyanyuk”).
Regarding claim 1, Slobodyanyuk teaches an information processing device comprising: a distance measurement unit (Figs. 1-2 para 29-30, Lidar systems 102, 202) that performs distance measurement at a timing at which a plurality of offset times are set and sequentially applied in a plurality of frames each corresponding to a synchronization signal, and outputs a distance measurement signal (Figs. 3-6, para 37-39. Slobodyanyuk discloses a LiDAR system that receives a universal clock signal, synchronizes an internal system clock to that signal, and assigns firing times within frames divided into multiple time slots, where the firing time is selected to reduce interference with other LiDAR systems. Each frame corresponds to the synchronized clock signal, and different time slots constitute different offset times sequentially applied across frames); and
a distance measurement calculation unit (Fig. 2, control unit 202) that performs calculation based on the distance measurement signal and sequentially outputs a distance measurement result (Figs. 1-2, para 21, 30, Slobodyanyuk further discloses a LiDAR control and processing unit that receives return signals and performs distance calculation (ToF) to sequentially output distance measurement results).
Regarding claim 7, Slobodyanyuk teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the distance measurement units are provided, and offset times different from each other are applied to the distance measurement units (Slobodyanyuk teaches environments with multiple LiDAR systems synchronized to a common clock (Fig. 3, block process 310, para 37) and operating with different time slots (offset times) to avoid mutual interference (Figs. 5–6, para 38-39, 46).).
Regarding claim 8, Slobodyanyuk teaches the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of distance measurement units each perform distance measurement in the same frame (Slobodyanyuk teaches that multiple LiDAR systems operate using a common synchronized frame, with each system transmitting within different time slots of the same frame (Fig. 5, para 37; A single frame divided into multiple time slots and Fig. 6, para 46; Time-slot allocation within the same frame to different systems.). Operating in different time slots of the same frame necessarily means each unit performs distance measurement in the same frame, satisfying the claim without inference.).
Claim 11 is method claim corresponding to device claim 1. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 is program claim. corresponding to device claim 1. It is rejected for the same reasons. See also, fig. 7, para 4, 50-51.
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.
Claims 2-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slobodyanyuk in view of Bhaskaran et al. (US 20200309957 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Slobodyanyuk fails to explicitly teach the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an interference determination unit that determines that at least a first previous distance measurement result among the first previous distance measurement result and a current distance measurement result is affected by interference in a case where there is a difference equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold between a second previous distance measurement result and the first previous distance measurement result and there is a difference equal to or larger than the threshold between the first previous distance measurement result and the current distance measurement result based on the second previous distance measurement result, the first previous distance measurement result, and the current distance measurement result.
However, Bhaskaran discloses receiving LiDAR detections over a sequence of scans and processing those detections in relation to detections obtained in other scans. For example, Figs. 2A–2B (Para 49, 53-54) illustrate LiDAR detections corresponding to different scans, where detections appear, disappear, or change between scans as the vehicle moves through an environment. These figures demonstrate that Bhaskaran evaluates LiDAR detections as part of a temporal sequence rather than as isolated, single-scan measurements.
Bhaskaran further discloses evaluating how LiDAR detections behave across multiple scans in order to determine whether the detections persist and behave consistently with real objects. As shown in Figs. 3A–3B (Para 60-61), detections are tracked across successive scans, and detections that persist across scans are treated differently from detections that change or fail to persist. The accompanying description explains that this multi-scan evaluation is used to distinguish valid object detections from unreliable detections.
Bhaskaran additionally discloses suppressing or discarding LiDAR detections that do not satisfy predetermined criteria when evaluated across scans. As illustrated in Figs. 4A–4C (at least Para 72-73), detections that change significantly, disappear, or otherwise fail to meet consistency or persistence criteria across scans are removed or filtered from further processing. This suppression reflects a determination that such detections are unreliable when evaluated using information from multiple scans.
As discussed with respect to claim 1, Slobodyanyuk teaches producing sequential distance measurement results across synchronized frames. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Bhaskaran’s multi-scan evaluation and suppression of inconsistent detections to the sequential distance measurement results produced by Slobodyanyuk in order to determine that a distance measurement result is affected by interference or is otherwise unreliable, as recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Slobodyanyuk in view of Bhaskara, teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the interference determination unit determines that the first previous distance measurement result and the current distance measurement result are affected by interference in a case where there is a difference equal to or larger than the threshold between the second previous distance measurement result and the current distance measurement result.
Bhaskaran further discloses evaluating LiDAR detections across more than two scans, including comparing detections obtained in earlier scans with detections obtained in later scans to determine whether the detections persist over time. As shown in FIGS. 3A–3B, detections are evaluated across a sequence of scans, allowing behavior observed in an earlier scan to be compared with behavior observed in a later scan, rather than being limited to comparisons of immediately adjacent scans (Para 20 also, discloses comparing earlier and later depth measurements and identifying false detections when the separation between measured distances exceeds a threshold value).
Bhaskaran also discloses suppressing detections that do not satisfy predetermined criteria when evaluated across the sequence of scans. As illustrated in FIGS. 4A–4C, detections that are present in an earlier scan but absent or significantly changed in a later scan are filtered out, reflecting a determination that such detections do not correspond to real objects.
Such disclosure corresponds to determining unreliability or interference based on a comparison between an earlier distance measurement result and a later distance measurement result, as recited in claim 3. As with claim 2, it would have been obvious to apply this teaching to the sequential distance measurement results generated by Slobodyanyuk in order to identify distance measurement results affected by interference.
Regarding claim 4, Slobodyanyuk in view of Bhaskara, teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, further comprising an offset time change unit that changes a corresponding offset time in a case where the interference determination unit determines that a distance measurement result is affected by interference (Slobodyanyuk teaches an offset time change unit that changes a corresponding offset time by reassigning a firing time selected from among a plurality of time slots in order to reduce interference with other LiDAR systems. Specifically, Slobodyanyuk discloses determining and assigning a firing time based on a synchronized clock signal to reduce interference (Fig. 3, process block 310, para 37) and selecting the firing time from among multiple time slots within a frame (Figs. 4–6). The controller/processor performing this reassignment constitutes an offset time change unit that changes the corresponding offset time as recited in claim 4.).
Regarding claim 5, Slobodyanyuk in view of Bhaskara, teaches the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the offset time change unit sets an offset time to be changed to a new offset time different from another offset time currently set (Slobodyanyuk teaches setting a changed offset time to a new offset time different from an offset time currently set by selecting a firing time from among a plurality of different time slots within a frame (Figs. 5–6). Because each time slot corresponds to a different firing time, selecting a different time slot necessarily results in a new offset time different from the previously set offset time, as recited in claim 5.).
Regarding claim 6, Slobodyanyuk in view of Bhaskara, teaches the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the offset time change unit sets an offset time to be changed to any offset time that is different from the offset time to be changed and is not affected by interference among other offset times currently set.
Slobodyanyuk teaches selecting firing times from among multiple offset times in order to minimize interference with other LiDAR systems (para 4-6, FIGS. 5–6). Bhaskaran teaches identifying distance measurement results affected by interference using threshold-based temporal analysis (para 16-18, FIGS. 2–5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select, from among the offset times disclosed by Slobodyanyuk, an offset time corresponding to distance measurement results not identified as affected by interference according to Bhaskaran, as a predictable interference-avoidance technique.
Regarding claim 9, Slobodyanyuk fails to explicitly teach the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information processing device is mounted on a mobile body, and an interference determination region is changed based on a moving direction of the mobile body.
However, Bhaskaran discloses a LiDAR perception system mounted on a mobile body, namely an autonomous vehicle (Figs. 1B and 6 para 43, 91). Bhaskaran further discloses evaluating LiDAR detections across successive scans as the vehicle moves through an environment, such that the spatial region in which detections are evaluated changes as the vehicle advances or changes direction (see Figs. 2A–2B and 3A–3B). Bhaskaran also discloses suppressing or retaining detections based on their behavior in later scans following vehicle movement (see Figs. 4A–4C).
Accordingly, Bhaskaran teaches that the region in which detections are evaluated for unreliability or interference-like effects changes based on the moving direction of the mobile body, as recited in claim 9.
It would have been obvious to apply this teaching to the interference determination of Slobodyanyuk in order to improve reliability of distance measurements in a mobile LiDAR system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slobodyanyuk in view of Hicks et al. (US 20200018854 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Slobodyanyuk fails to explicitly teach the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an imaging device that has an imaging range corresponding to a distance measurement range of the distance measurement unit and performs imaging, wherein in a case where a motion detection region for an imaging target and a distance measurement region in which a difference between a first previous distance measurement result and a current distance measurement result is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold do not match each other based on a captured image corresponding to the frame, it is determined that interference has occurred in a corresponding non-matching region.
However, Hicks discloses an imaging device and a LiDAR distance measurement device having overlapping fields of view (Figs. 11–13). Hicks further discloses detecting objects using camera imagery and comparing the camera-detected regions with LiDAR detections, and suppressing LiDAR detections that do not correspond to objects detected in the camera image (Fig. 13, 116-118, claim 1). Accordingly, Hicks teaches determining that LiDAR distance measurement changes occurring in regions not matching image-based motion or object detection regions are unreliable or interference-affected, as recited in claim 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use camera-based imaging to corroborate LiDAR distance measurement results and to identify LiDAR distance changes that are not supported by corresponding image-based detections as unreliable or interference-affected, because multi-sensor validation is a predictable and commonly used technique for improving perception reliability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Price et al. (US 20180130209 A1), teaches Interference mitigation via adaptative depth imaging
Gilliland et al. (US 20160003946 A1), teaches Ladar Sensor for a dense environment
Kim et al. (US 20130177236 A1), teaches method and apparatus for processing depth image
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645