DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant' s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “obtaining a representation of a native horizontal plane provided by a non-LiDAR System of the vehicle, wherein the non-Lidar system of the vehicle is a separate system from the LiDAR system”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues that Hu does not teach obtaining a representation of a native horizontal plane provided by a non-LiDAR system of the vehicle. However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 06/22/2026. Therefore, the issue of whether Hu addresses these limitations is not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Hu and Morgan in the present Office Action.
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) 1-5, 8-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (20230266451) in view of Morgan et al. (US 20210252932).
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches:
A fault-detection system (#105 of Fig. 1, autonomous driving module) for detecting fault in a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (#180 of Fig. 1, LIDAR sensors) mounted on a vehicle (#102 of Fig. 1, vehicle), the LiDAR system being configured to provide point cloud data of an external environment of the vehicle in accordance with a LiDAR coordinate system (#504 of Fig. 5A, point cloud), the fault-detection system comprising:
one or more processors (#104 of Fig. 1, alignment module, [73] states that modules can include processors),,
a memory device (#192 of Fig. 1, memory), and
processor-executable instructions stored in the memory device, the processor- executable instructions (#104 of Fig. 1, alignment module, [73] states that modules can include memory stores code executed by the processor) comprising instructions for:
obtaining a vehicle speed [55];
obtaining conversion parameters used for converting from the LiDAR coordinate system to a vehicle coordinate system (#224 of Fig. 2, transformation matrix buffer);
determining whether the vehicle speed exceeds a vehicle speed threshold [55];
in accordance with a determination that the vehicle speed exceeds the vehicle speed threshold, obtaining a representation of a road surface plane expressed in the vehicle coordinate system [52];
obtaining a representation of a native horizontal plane [64]
determining whether a fault in the LiDAR system has occurred based on the representation of the road surface plane and the representation of the native horizontal plane [45]
Hu does not teach:
obtaining a representation of a native horizontal plane provided by a non-LiDAR system of the vehicle, wherein the non-LiDAR system of the vehicle is a separate system from the LiDAR system;
However, Morgan teaches:
obtaining a representation of a native horizontal plane provided by a non-LiDAR system of the vehicle, wherein the non-LiDAR system of the vehicle is a separate system from the LiDAR system ([19 and 21]: the pitch and roll of the vehicle relative to the earth normal can be received from GPS or INS systems, the yaw can be received from steering articulation);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR alignment system of Hu to receive pitch yaw and roll of the vehicle from a GPS or INS system with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the LIDAR alignment by accounting for situations where a vehicle is not perpendicular to the ground surface.
Regarding claim 2, Hu also teaches: the fault-detection system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is configured to provide map data of the external environment of the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle coordinate system [64], the map data comprising the representation of the native horizontal plane of the external environment [64].
Regarding claim 3, Hu also teaches:
The fault-detection system of claim 1, wherein obtaining the conversion parameters used for converting from the LiDAR coordinate system to the vehicle coordinate system comprises:
obtaining a reference rotation vector and a rotation angle from the vehicle [65]; and
converting the reference rotation vector to a rotation matrix [65].
Regarding claim 4, Hu also teaches:
The fault-detection system of claim 1, wherein obtaining the representation of the road surface plane expressed in the vehicle coordinate system comprises:
obtaining the point cloud data provided by the LiDAR system [58];
deriving the road surface plane based on the point cloud data [63];
obtaining the representation of the road surface plane [63]; and
converting the representation of the road surface plane from the LiDAR coordinate system to the vehicle coordinate system using the conversion parameters [64].
Regarding claim 5, Hu also teaches:
The fault-detection system of claim 4, wherein deriving the road surface plane from the point cloud data comprises:
selecting a plurality of reference points on a road surface from the point cloud data [63]; and
deriving the road surface plane based on the plurality of reference points on the road surface [63].
Regarding claim 8, Hu also teaches:
The fault-detection system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the fault in the LiDAR system has occurred comprises:
calculating a deviation angle between the representation of the road surface plane and the representation of the native horizontal plane [45]; and
determining whether the deviation angle exceeds a deviation angle threshold [45].
Regarding claim 9, Hu also teaches:
The fault-detection system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions comprise further instructions for:
based on a determination that the fault in the LiDAR system has occurred, sending information of the fault to the vehicle [47 and 65].
(Hu states in [47] that the autonomous driving module (which includes the alignment module) can send error messages, and states in [65] that the alignment module updates the transformation matrix.)
Claim 10 is identical in scope to claim 1 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 11 is identical in scope to claim 2 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 12 is identical in scope to claim 3 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 13 is identical in scope to claim 4 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 14 is identical in scope to claim 5 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 17 is identical in scope to claim 8 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 18 is identical in scope to claim 9 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Morgan as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Oliveira Almeida et al. (US 20200074370).
Regarding claim 6, Hu, as modified above, teaches:
The fault-detection system of claim 5
Hu does not teach, but Oliveira does teach:
processor-executable instructions comprising instructions for: determining whether a total number of the plurality of reference points satisfies a condition for determining a road surface plane [78, does not run analysis if there are not enough points in the dataset]
Hu also teaches:
Using the RANSAC algorithm to identify a plane [63]
Additionally, Wikipedia (Random sample consensus [online]. Wikipedia, 2016 [retrieved on 2016-10-18]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20161018124411/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample_consensus>) teaches:
The RANSAC algorithm requires at least a certain number of points [Section titled “Algorithm”].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR alignment system of Hu to use a dataset checking method similar to Oliveira with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the RANSAC algorithm to function properly, as the RANSAC algorithm requires a certain number of points.
Claim 15 is identical in scope to claim 6 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Morgan as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Dins et al. (US 20220121836).
Regarding claim 7,Hu, as modified above, teaches:
The fault-detection system of claim 5
Hu does not teach, but Dins does teach:
wherein the processor-executable instructions comprise further instructions for: calculating a variance between the derived road surface plane and the road surface; and determining whether the variance exceeds a variance threshold [30, checks for flatness using a variance threshold].
Hu also teaches:
Not running the correction system when the road surface is not flat [55]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR alignment system of Hu to use variance to check flatness similar to Dins with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing the system from aligning itself using inaccurate data.
Claim 16 is identical in scope to claim 7 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights