DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amended claims filed on 1/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2019/0340775).
As to claim 1 Lee discloses a method for estimating reliability of a bounding point of a track, the method comprising:
extracting, by a processor (604), bounding points (figure 2 #210) from a boundary of a track box (figure 2C #208) shown of a target object (the car),
(The Region of Interest (ROI) shown in figure 2 #212 is the tracking box as it is a two-dimensional region representing as a box, shown in figure 2C. The points are also shown in all the figure 2 images.)
Wherein the track box is determined based on sensing data of the target object by a sensing device (figure 5 #500)
determining, by the processor, association between the bounding points and at least one LiDAR contour point based on a distance between the track box (ROI Figure 2C # 210) and the at least one LiDAR contour point (all the points within #210);
The bounding points are points shown in the images in figure 2 that are within the boundary of the image (212) not all these points are used to determine distance to the vehicle. The bounding points that are LiDAR contour points are those on the back of the car or fit within the track box (ROI) #212, these are used to determine the distance to the vehicle within the track box.
determining, by the processor, scores of the bounding points based on the association (paragraph 0013); and
estimating, by the processor, reliability of the bounding points based on the scores of the bounding points. (See the abstract, by improving accuracy by using the score weights they are improving reliability/accuracy).
As to claim 2 Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the bounding points are located at respective corners and centers of sides of the track box (the track box in this case is the ROI shown in figure 2C, as disclosed in the specification in the process there will be a cloud of points covering all the corners center and sides, paragraph 0014).
As to claim 3 Lee discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the bounding points are extracted based on a width (paragraph 0054) or a length of the track box (shown in figure 3 the probability increases based on distance), a heading angle of the track box, and location information of a first bounding point predetermined for the track box.
As to claim 11 Lee discloses a system for estimating reliability of a bounding point of a track, the system comprising:
an interface configured to receive LIDAR data from a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor of a vehicle; and
a processor configured to be electrically or communicatively connected to the interface,
wherein the processor is further configured to:
extract bounding points from a track box of a target object,
(the region of interest (ROI) shown in figure 2 #212 is the tracking box as it is a two-dimensional region representing as a box, shown in figure 2C. The points are also shown in all the figure 2 images.)
determine association between the bounding points and at least one LIDAR contour point based on a distance between the track box and the at least one LIDAR contour point, (ROI Figure 2C # 210) and the at least one LiDAR contour point (all the points within #210);
The bounding points are points shown in the images in figure 2 that are within the boundary of the image (212) not all these points are used to determine distance to the vehicle. The bounding points that are LiDAR contour points are those on the back of the car or fit within the track box (ROI) #212, these are used to determine the distance to the vehicle within the track box.
determine scores of the bounding points based on the association, (paragraph 0013) and
estimate reliability of the bounding points based on the scores of the bounding points. (See the abstract, by improving accuracy by using the score weights they are improving reliability/accuracy).
As to claim 12 Lee discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the bounding points are located at respective corners and centers of sides of the track box. (The track box in this case is the ROI shown in figure 2C, as disclosed in the specification in the process there will be a cloud of points covering all the corners center and sides, paragraph 0014).
As to claim 13 Lee discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the bounding points are extracted based on a width or a length (paragraph 0054) of the track box (shown in figure 3 the probability increases based on distance), a heading angle of the track box, and location information of a first bounding point predetermined for the track box.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the prior art does not extract, by a processor, bounding points from a boundary of a track box of a target object. In the figures 2A-2C in the prior art shows the item 208 which is the view of the lidar of the target object this is the track box (208) which is determined by the lidar and image sensors. Within this track box is (210) which is the extracted bounding points. The corners are considered the bounding points connected together to give the box 210.
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 SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 est.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights