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 .
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.
Claim(s) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugio (20220303577).
Referring to claim 1 and 20-22, Sugio shows a computer-implemented method, (corresponding LIDAR, vehicle and non-transitory computer readable medium) for compressing point cloud data obtained by a light ranging and detection (LiDAR) system (see figure 1), the method comprising:
obtaining uncompressed point cloud data, wherein each of the uncompressed point cloud data is represented by 3-dimensional coordinates identifying positions within a field-of-view of the LiDAR system (see paragraph 211 note the LIDAR or range finder that generates point cloud data), at least one of the 3-dimensional coordinates (see paragraph 202) being derived from a time-of-flight measured by transmitting a light beam to the field-of-view and receiving return light formed based on the transmitted light beam (see paragraph 211 note the LIDAR or range finder that generates the point cloud data also see paragraph 678 including details of TOF);
identifying one or more sub-groups of the uncompressed point cloud data for compression (see paragraph 376 note the plurality of submaps), wherein data points of the one or more sub-groups representing positions of one or more regions within the field-of-view (see paragraph 378 note the submaps include a partial area of the overall map);
encoding the one or more sub-groups of the uncompressed point cloud data using differential coordinates to obtain first encoded point cloud data (see paragraph 376 note the submap has sub coordinates as reference are referred to as differential coordinates); and
providing the first encoded point cloud data to a processor to construct at least a part of a three-dimensional perception of the field-of-view (see paragraph 935 note the cline device uses the three-dimensional map received from the server to perform a process, also see paragraph 992 including displaying the decoded point cloud).
Referring to claim 20, Sugio shows a transmitter, scanner, and receiver as well as the data compression shown in the rejection of claim 1, (see the LIDAR as referenced above and the scanner shown in paragraph 151-153).
Referring to claim 2, Sugio shows the uncompressed point cloud data comprise one or more frames of data points (see paragraph 311 for the multiple frames).
Referring to claim 3, Sugio shows the 3-dimensional coordinates comprise Cartesian coordinates in X, Y, and Z directions (see paragraph 477).
Referring to claim 4, Sugio shows the 3-dimensional coordinates comprise spherical coordinates represented by horizontal angular coordinates, vertical angular coordinates, and distance coordinates (see paragraph 477 note the polar coordinates for three dimensional space).
Referring to claim 5, Sugio shows the 3-dimensional coordinates comprise polar coordinates, or cylindrical coordinates (see paragraph 477).
Referring to claim 13, Sugio shows identifying the one or more sub-groups of the uncompressed point cloud data for compression comprises:
for each frame of the uncompressed point cloud data, identifying the one or more sub-groups for compression based on data point densities of a plurality of scanlines of the frame (see paragraph 388-390).
Referring to claim 18, Sugio shows a quantity of bits required for encoding using the differential coordinates is less than a number of bits required for encoding using the absolute coordinates (see paragraph 383).
Referring to claim 19, Sugio shows the differential coordinates represent differences between absolutes coordinates of two neighboring data points of the uncompressed point cloud data (see paragraph 418).
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) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugio (20220303577) in view of Ziglar (20220128702).
Referring to claim 6, Sugio fails to show but Ziglar shows identifying the one or more sub-groups of the uncompressed point cloud data for compression comprises:
for each frame of the uncompressed point cloud data, identifying the one or more sub-groups for compression based on data point densities of a plurality of scanlines of the frame (see paragraph 135). It would have been obvious to include identifying the sub-groups based on densities because this allows for merging clusters of points that belong to a single object as taught by Ziglar.
Referring to claim 17, Sugio renders obivous encoding coordinates of a beginning position and an end position of the sub-group (see paragraph 376).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12, 14-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights