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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome one of the 112a rejections,
The remaining issues are addressed below.
At the outset, the examiner does not understand the first paragraph of Applicant’s remarks.
Title
Applicant argues:
Thus, the amended title of the invention is descriptive.
Examiner responds:
The new title does not describe the invention. The examiner understands the invention to be about ramps, non-ramps and lidar point clouds.
Applicant argues:
Accordingly, the objection to the abstract has been overcome.
Examiner responds:
The deletion does not address “Specifically, the abstract raises issues in line with the 112(a) and (b) rejections below.” Further, the abstract should say what problem has been solved.
Applicant argues:
The approach for obtaining height information does not rely on the GPS and constitutes a generic method that works across the full breadth of application scenarios, including parking garages.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s earlier statement, “The root cause lies in the fact that, when a vehicle travels through complex environments like multi-level parking structures or overpasses, it is difficult to accurately determine, from the collected point cloud data, the specific elevation level of the road segment on which the data was acquired,” appears to contradict this statement. Additionally, Applicant may wish to IDS documents detailing how height information is obtained.
Applicant argues:
In addition to GPS, such techniques include at least:
Examiner responds:
The examiner did not find support for these in the specification.
Applicant argues:
Secondly, the specification explicitly teaches the use of multi-sensor fusion to obtain vehicle state information (including pitch angle).
Examiner responds:
The examiner did not find support for this in the specification.
Applicant argues:
Thirdly, the core of the invention lies in the concept and procedural method of "layering based on height information," rather than in the antecedent, well-established data acquisition step of "how to measure height.
Examiner responds:
The examiner does not understand what the intended distinction is.
Applicant argues:
the "height information" in the amended claims 1 and 10 is understood as "elevation."
Examiner responds:
The claims should be accordingly amended (i.e, to recite “elevation”). However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "height information" in light of the specification is not so limited.
Applicant argues:
… and other related family applications of the present application.
Examiner responds:
Which other applications are being referred to?
Applicant’s other arguments regarding 112b are not persuasive under U.S. patent practice, because, for example, they attempt to define terms by improperly importing limitations from the specification.
Applicant argues:
The applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner refer to these explanatory remarks when evaluating the definiteness and patentability of the claims.
103
Examiner responds:
The remarks do not apply to the definiteness rejection. The examiner has considered them for the purpose of applying prior art, but the examiner does not understand phrases such as “dividing point cloud frame index values associated with all the first point cloud data into a plurality of first index ranges based on continuity of the index values,” (i.e., the first limitation of claim 4), and thus does not see the advantage of this second translation.
Applicant argues:
Shipley does not involve analyzing or processing acquired point cloud data itself
Examiner responds:
Yang is relied on for the point cloud
Applicant argues:
nor does it disclose how to divide the area traversed by the entire driving trajectory into a "ramp region" and a "non-ramp region."
Examiner responds:
The Office Action cited Shipley 0043 as teaching precisely this.
Applicant argues:
The core of the above distinguishing technical features lies in performing automated, structured semantic segmentation and layering of the dense point cloud acquired along the vehicle's driving trajectory.
Examiner responds:
The examiner has not found any disclosure of semantic understanding.
Applicant argues:
Yang does not teach how to use continuous vehicle pitch angle information to segment the vehicle's driving trajectory, nor does it divide that trajectory into regions having different semantic meanings (ramp region and non-ramp region). Furthermore, Yang does not address the effect of vehicle pitch angle on point cloud data layering
Examiner responds:
Shipley teaches that 10 degrees of incline means a ramp.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not “enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.” 37 CFR 1.72(b). Specifically, the abstract raises issues in line with the 112(a) and (b) rejections below. Further, the statement “the problem of dividing the point cloud data at different layers into the point cloud data in a same layer is solved” is not understood.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 18 references claim 1, but does not properly depend from claim 1 because the instructions can exist without performance of any of the method steps. Here, claim 1 is a method but claim 18 is an apparatus, and the apparatus claim can be met without necessarily practicing the method. MPEP 608.01(n)(III) addresses the “test for proper dependency.”
MPEP 607(III) states:
Any claim which is in dependent form but which is so worded that it, in fact, is not a proper dependent claim, as for example it does not include every limitation of the claim on which it depends, will be required to be canceled as not being a proper dependent claim; and cancellation of any further claim depending on such a dependent claim will be similarly required. The applicant may thereupon amend the claims to place them in proper dependent form, or may redraft them as independent claims, upon payment of any necessary additional fee.
Claim 18 is such a claim because it is directed to a system rather than a method as in referenced claim 1. MPEP 608.01(n)(III). While, in the interest of compact prosecution, claim 18 has been examined, claim 18 is required to be cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-18 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a) states “Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 593, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[A] reduction to practice does not occur until the inventor has determined that the invention will work for its intended purpose.”).” As discussed below, the present specification includes critical technical gaps that would have been apparent had this invention been reduced to practice.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “according to its height information,” but the only instance of the specification teaching how to acquire height information is specification, [00109] “here the vehicle height information may be obtained through the GPS” (this is assuming that “height” should have been translated as meaning “altitude”) However, the invention is directed to parking garages, where GPS signals are unavailable. Specification, [0003] and [0004]. The specification does not provide written description support for the full breadth of this invention because the specification’s technique (GPS) only works where one can receive a satellite signal, but there is not a generic method that works in parking garages. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii).
Claims 1 and 10 are directed to “layering the non-ramp region according to its height information.” Applicant argues that this is different than a point cloud with elevation information. See, e.g., “the core of the invention lies in the concept and procedural method of "layering based on height information," rather than in the antecedent, well-established data acquisition step of ‘how to measure height.’” Remarks at 14, bottom. The specification does not convey why having non-ramp regions “layered” as opposed to merely with height/elevation is an advantage. The specification makes statements about this, but these statements are not explained and contradict the examiner’s understanding of the technology. See, e.g., Gong Z, Li J, Luo Z, Wen C, Wang C, Zelek J. Mapping and semantic modeling of underground parking lots using a backpack LiDAR system. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems. 2019 Dec 5;22(2):734-46 (attached) that shows using LIDAR to map an underground garage while accounting for different floors, but no discussion of layering or regions from the examiner’s review. In particular, this article’s Figure 7 shows parking lot maps that span multiple floors. These claims lack written description support because the disclosure does not disclose the advantage of layering. See MPEP 2163(I), “the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based.”
To the extent that they are understood, dependent claims are likewise rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of their parents and do not appear to correct them.
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, 2, 4-11, 13-18 (all claims) 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. This may necessitate a new set of claims.
In the interest of compact prosecution, below the examiner has identified representative issues from the independent claims.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “various,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claims 1 and 10 recite “corresponding,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claims 1 and 10 recite a “to-be-processed trajectory,” but it is not clear what the trajectory is (e.g., is it data?). Further, it is not clear how to determine whether a trajectory is “to-be-processed,” or how to interpret “to-be-processed” when the claim recites processing it.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “in the case of,” but it is not clear if the meaning is that this element is conditional.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “according,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claims 1 and 10 recite “layering the non-ramp region according to height information,” but it is not clear what this means. What does it mean to layer a region? What is the height information (e.g., the height of what? Where did this information come from? How does “height information” differ from a height?)
Claims 4-7 and 13-15 are indefinite for depending from a canceled claim.
To the extent that they are understood, dependent claims are likewise rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of their parents and do not appear to correct them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200132473A1 (“Shipley”) in view of US20180190016A1 (“Yang”).
1. A layering method for point cloud data, comprising:
determining, for various frames of (Shipley, [0043] “In particular, the given positional state 304 shown in diagram 300 includes the vehicle 302 having a given pitch (e.g., inclination) of approximately 10 degrees. See also claim 12.)
wherein the trajectory is generated by the vehicle driving in a target scene and includes a plurality of trajectory points ordered chronologically (Shipley, [0004] “FIG. 2 shows a diagram of an example vehicle detecting landmarks while navigating a parking structure, in accordance with example embodiments of the disclosure.”)
dividing the to-be-processed trajectory into a ramp region and a non-ramp region according to a size relationship between the vehicle pitch angles corresponding to the various frames of point cloud data; and layering the non-ramp region according to its height information. (Shipley, [0043] “In particular, the given positional state 304 shown in diagram 300 includes the vehicle 302 having a given pitch (e.g., inclination) of approximately 10 degrees. This may be due to the vehicle 302 driving in a ramp of a parking structure (e.g., a parking structure similar to the parking structure 110 shown and described in connection with FIG. 1, above).” See also, Fig. 5, step 512.)
wherein the dividing the to-be-processed trajectory into a ramp region and a non-ramp region according to a size relationship between the various frames of point cloud data and the corresponding vehicle pitch angles comprises:
making the point cloud data corresponding to those of the vehicle pitch angles larger than a preset angle in the various frames of point cloud data serve as first point cloud data of the target vehicle driving uphill or downhill; and (Shipley, [0041] “one or more vehicle 202 devices (e.g., an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an inertial measurement unit, and the like) may have internal readings that indicate an incline or decline greater than a threshold value (e.g., approximately 10 degrees)”)
making a to-be-processed trajectory corresponding to a set of all the first point cloud data serve as the ramp region, and (Shipley, [0043] “In particular, the given positional state 304 shown in diagram 300 includes the vehicle 302 having a given pitch (e.g., inclination) of approximately 10 degrees. This may be due to the vehicle 302 driving in a ramp of a parking structure (e.g., a parking structure similar to the parking structure 110 shown and described in connection with FIG. 1, above).” See also, Fig. 5, step 512.)
Shipley is not relied on for the below claim language.
However, Yang teaches that the frames of data are frames of point cloud data. (Yang, [0078] “The 3D points in the point cloud may be generated by converting the range values and associated pitch and yaw angles collected by the LiDAR sensor into a three-dimensional coordinate system, such as Cartesian coordinates, cylindrical coordinates, or spherical coordinates.”)
making a to-be-processed trajectory corresponding to a set of all second point cloud data in addition to the first point cloud data serve as the non-ramp region. (Yang, Fig. 10B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yang to the teachings of Shipley such that Yang’s point clouds are used by Shipley for the purpose of providing implementation details for Lidar.
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein after the layering the non-ramp region according to height information, the method further comprises:
visually displaying the point cloud data in different layers according to a layering result of the non-ramp region, and (Yang, [0123] “the techniques can also be applied to other applications, for example, for displaying HD maps for vehicles with drivers … .”)
generating planes corresponding to different layer heights for creating maps corresponding to the various planes. (Yang, [0090] “For example, the vehicle computing system 130 identifies multiple planes, with each plane parallel to the image sensor of one of the cameras, and then projects the 3D points in the point cloud onto each of the planes.”)
7. The method according to claim 3, wherein each vehicle pitch angle is a filtered vehicle pitch angle. (Yang, abstract “As another example, the system uses data collected by the LiDAR sensor to identify vertical structures and interpolate additional points on those vertical structures.” Yang’s interpolation teaches the claimed filtering see, e.g., specification [0097] that filtering corrects jitter.)
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining vehicle pitch angles relative to a horizontal plane in the case of a target vehicle collecting the various frames of point cloud data comprises:
determining, based on a relative relationship between a vehicle body coordinate system and a standard coordinate system, the vehicle pitch angles relative to a horizontal plane in the case of the target vehicle collecting the various frames of point cloud data, (Shipley, [0041] “one or more vehicle 202 devices (e.g., an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an inertial measurement unit, and the like) may have internal readings that indicate an incline or decline greater than a threshold value (e.g., approximately 10 degrees)”)
wherein the vehicle body coordinate system is a coordinate system fixedly connected with a vehicle body, and (Shipley, [0030] “Further, measuring the visual angle from a vehicle's 102 device to the marker may enable the device to estimate its own location coordinates in reference to the marker.”)
the standard coordinate system is a coordinate system corresponding to the horizontal plane; or (Shipley, [0030] “Coordinates include latitude, longitude, level and altitude off a given floor of the parking structure 110.”)
determining, based on data collected by an inertial measurement unit (IMU), the vehicle pitch angles relative to the horizontal plane in the case of the target vehicle collecting the various frames of point cloud data; or (Shipley, [0013] “In particular, in an embodiment, the vehicle may sense changes in a parking structure level using one or more sensors and devices on the vehicle, for example, … inertial sensors, and the like to determine one or more of the following: pitch changes, … .”)
determining, based on data fused by a plurality of sensors, the vehicle pitch angles relative to the horizontal plane in the case of the target vehicle collecting the various frames of point cloud data, (Shipley, [0019] “The vehicle and associated devices may employ sensor fusion to determine a parking activity.”)
wherein the plurality of sensors comprise the IMUs, global positioning systems (GPS), radars or image sensors. (Shipley, [0123] “wherein he first data comprises data from one or more of… an inertial sensor of the vehicle, and wherein the second data comprises data from a camera device, a radar device, a lidar device … of the vehicle.” See also, Shipley, [0035] “GPS receiver.”)
Claims 10, 11 and 17 are rejected as per claims 1, 2 and 9. See also, Shipley, claim 1 teaching the claimed hardware.
18. An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a storage device, configured to store one or more programs, wherein when executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs enable the one or more processors to implement the method according to claim 1. (Shipley, claim 1 “A device comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more computer processors configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to: … .” See also the mapping of claim 1, above.)
Claims 4-6, 8, and 13-16
While all claims are rejected as replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, the language of claims 4-6, 8, and 13-16 is sufficiently indefinite that non-application of art is not to be taken as an indication of allowability. “However, an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation.” MPEP 2143.03(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US10775488B2 – claim 7 “The LIDAR calibration system of claim 6, wherein the at least one incline angle comprises a roll angle and a pitch angle.”
US8170725B2 – Abstract “The system determines that the vehicle has made an on-ramp or off-ramp maneuver using the vehicle speed signal and the yaw-rate signal”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights