Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/071,311

VEHICLE LIDAR SYSTEM AND OBJECT DETECTION METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 29, 2022
Examiner
WOLDEMARYAM, ASSRES H
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kia Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
577 granted / 696 resolved
+30.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
737
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 696 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in regards to application # 18/071,311 that was filed on 11/19/2022. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and are under examination. 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 1-18 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. Claim 1 recites “ … forming a contour of an object to be separated by connecting peak points among point data of the object to be separated…” in line 3-4. It is not clear how a physical object can be separated as described in the claim? Is the claim mean to say point data that seem to be connected as a single object on a lidar sensor data that needs to be separated to represent distinct objects in the vehicle environment? If that’s what the applicant mean, the claim need to be amended to clarify that. As it stands the examiner is not clear how an object can be separated and it is not clear if the object being separated is data point or a physical object that is being detected outside of the lidar sensor. Therefore, claim 1 is considered vague and indefinite. Claim 12 recites “ … forming a contour of an object to be separated by connecting peak points among point data of the object to be separated…” in line 4-5. It is not clear how a physical object can be separated as described in the claim? Is the claim mean to say point data that seem to be connected as a single object on a lidar sensor data that needs to be separated to represent distinct objects in the vehicle environment? If that’s what the applicant mean, the claim need to be amended to clarify that. As it stands the examiner is not clear how an object can be separated and it is not clear if the object being separated is data point or a physical object that is being detected outside of the lidar sensor. Therefore, claim 1 is considered vague and indefinite. Claim 13 recites “ … upon determining that the recognized objects include an object to be separated, to determine, in a contour of the object to be separated formed by connecting peak points among point data of the object to be separated…” in line 4-6. It is not clear how a physical object can be separated as described in the claim? Is the claim mean to say point data that seem to be connected as a single object on a lidar sensor data that needs to be separated to represent distinct objects in the vehicle environment? If that’s what the applicant mean, the claim need to be amended to clarify that. As it stands the examiner is not clear how an object can be separated and it is not clear if the object being separated is data point or a physical object that is being detected outside of the lidar sensor. Therefore, claim 1 is considered vague and indefinite. All dependent claims are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of the parent claims solely based on their dependency from the rejected parent claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lo et al. discussed methods for detecting "structure lines" based on the topology of elevation changes in LiDAR point clouds have been studied, where lines are identified by connecting points that represent sharp reliefs or steep changes (peak points). Andres et al. discloses separation of overlapping objects (2021) by spatiotemporal segmentation to "identify and separate individual change forms" from 3D LiDAR time series data. This addresses the core problem similarly by taking a single cluster of point data and determining how to divide it into distinct, recognized objects. Samet et al. discussed semi-automatic approaches for the reconstruction of contour lines by following local and geometric properties of point clouds. This includes "reconnecting" broken contour lines based on geometric alignments, which is similar to the concept of connecting peak points to define a boundary. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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. Assres H. Woldemaryam Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics) Art Unit 3642 /ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 29, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601154
TRENCH MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596183
SENSING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595051
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RETRACTING LIFT PROPELLER IN EVTOL AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593128
VIBRATION DAMPING GIMBAL SLEEVE FOR AN AERIAL VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589893
DEBRIS REMOVAL SATELLITE, DEBRIS REMOVAL CONTROL APPARATUS, DEBRIS REMOVAL CONTROL METHOD, AND GROUND FACILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+11.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 696 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month