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 .
Drawings
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps that include acquiring point cloud data, determining interstitial points of the data, and filtering out the interstitial points.
The limitation of acquiring point cloud data, determining interstitial points of the data, and filtering out the interstitial points, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the computer components of claim 10). That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “acquiring”, “determining”, and “filtering” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually looking at point cloud data, determining a data point that is an interstitial point from the data, and deciding not to use that data point in a mental analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 10
only recites one additional element – using a processor to acquire point cloud data, determine interstitial points of the data, and filter out the interstitial points. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komuro et al. (US 2018/0267153), hereinafter Komuro.
In re. claim 1, Komuro teaches a method for filtering out interstitial points in a radar point cloud, the method comprising: for a to-be-recognized point in the point cloud, acquiring, from point cloud information (measurement points obtained from the scan) (para [0048]), ranging information of the to-be-recognized point (P(i)) (para [0050]), ranging information of one or more auxiliary points at a first side (denoted by +1) (figs. 3A-3C), and ranging information of one or more auxiliary points at a second side (denoted by -1) (figs. 3A-3C), wherein a timing span between an auxiliary point at the first side farthest away from the to-be-recognized point and the to-be-recognized point or between an auxiliary point at the second side farthest away from the to-be-recognized point and the to-be-recognized point is related to an angular resolution of a radar (scanning rotational angle in figure 3A) (para [0037] and [0048]); determining, based on the ranging information of the one or more auxiliary points at the first side and the ranging information of the one or more auxiliary points at the second side, whether the to-be-recognized point is an interstitial point (threshold to determine noise measurement point) (para [0050]); and filtering out the to-be-recognized point if the to-be-recognized point is the interstitial point (noise measurement points deleted) (para [0047]).
In re. claim 3, Komuro teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining, based on the ranging information of the one or more auxiliary points at the first side and the ranging information of the one or more auxiliary points at the second side, whether the to-be-recognized point (P(i)) (para [0050]) is the interstitial point further comprises: determining, based on the ranging information of the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point (P(b+1)) (fig. 3C) and the ranging information of the auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point (P(b-1)) (fig. 3C), whether the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point and the auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point are located on the same object (based on the determination angle e(b)) (fig. 3C), wherein the to-be-recognized point is located between the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point and the auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point (fig. 3A); and if the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point and the auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point are located on the same object, the to-be-recognized point is not the interstitial point (e(b) greater than or equal to the threshold) (para [0072]-[0073]).
In re. claim 4, Komuro teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein if a distance of a to-be-recognized point (P(i)) is between a distance corresponding to the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point and the distance corresponding to an auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point, the to-be-recognized point is located between the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point and the auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point (points between objects B and A in figure 3A).
In re. claim 5, Komuro teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein if the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point and the auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point are not located on the same object, it is determined based on the ranging information of a plurality of auxiliary points at the first side and the ranging information of a plurality of auxiliary points at the second side whether the plurality of auxiliary points at the first side are located on a first object (B) and whether the plurality of auxiliary points at the second side are located on a second object (A) (fig. 3A); and if the plurality of auxiliary points at the first side are located on the first object (points allocated to object (B)) and the plurality of auxiliary points at the second side are located on the second object (points allocated to object (A)), the to-be- recognized point is the interstitial point (points between objects B and A in figure 3A).
In re. claim 6, Komuro teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein if the ranging information of the plurality of auxiliary points at the first side is all 0 or the ranging information of the plurality of auxiliary points at the second side is all 0, the to-be-recognized point is not the interstitial point (i.e. when the angle between (e(b) and object (A) is zero) (fig. 3C).
In re. claim 7, Komuro teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the to-be-recognized point, the one or more auxiliary points at the first side, and the one or more auxiliary points at the second side are all within a maximum threshold distance (i.e. within maximum operating distance of LRF (1)).
In re. claim 8, Komuro teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein if the auxiliary point at the first side of the to-be-recognized point closest to the to-be-recognized point and the auxiliary point at the second side of the to-be-recognized point closest to the to-be-recognized point are located on the same object (fig. 3C), it is determined based on the ranging information of the to-be-recognized point, the ranging information of the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point, and the ranging information of the auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point whether the to-be-recognized point is close to the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point or whether the to-be-recognized point is close to the auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point (fig. 3C); and if the to-be-recognized point is close to the auxiliary point at the first side closest to the to-be-recognized point or the to-be-recognized point is close to the auxiliary point at the second side closest to the to-be-recognized point, the to-be-recognized point is not the interstitial point (e(b) greater than or equal to the threshold) (para [0072]-[0073]).
In re. claim 9, Komuro teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein all points in the point cloud are successively used as the to-be-recognized point to perform the steps of the above method for recognition (when the processing unit selects each target point (P(i)) (para [0050]).
In re. claim 10, Komuro teaches a processor (2), configured to perform the method of filtering out interstitial points in a radar point cloud according to claim 1 (para [0050]).
In re. claim 11, Komuro teaches a laser radar (LRF (1)), comprising: a transmitting device configured to transmit a laser detection beam (structure for emitting laser beam) (para [0002]) (fig. 3A); and a receiving device configured to receive the detection beam and perform photoelectric conversion to obtain a corresponding point cloud (structure for sensor that measures environment) (para [0002]), wherein the laser radar further comprises the processor (2) according to claim 10 to perform the method for filtering out interstitial points in a radar point cloud based on the point cloud (para [0050]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komuro.
In re. claim 2, Komuro fails to disclose the timing span between the auxiliary point at the first side farthest away from the to-be-recognized point and the to-be- recognized point is equal to a number of the one or more auxiliary points at the first side times a multiple of a maximum angular resolution and a minimum angular resolution of the radar, and the timing span between the auxiliary point at the second side farthest away from the to-be-recognized point and the to-be-recognized point is equal to a number of the one or more auxiliary points at the second side times a multiple of a maximum angular resolution and a minimum angular resolution of the radar.
However, Komuro states in para [0037] that “the LRF 1 has a rotational speed that enables the rotational angle… of the LRF 1 per scanning period of the laser beam in the direction about the X-axis to remain a sufficiently small angle”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Komuro to have the recited timing span, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II). Doing so enables the angle to be sufficiently small enough to remove the noise data, further improving resolution of the data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647