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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-12 and 16-19 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the first clause refers to “each lamp head shape”. However, only a singular lamp head shape belonging to a traffic light has been previously recited and therefore it is unclear what/where these lamp head shapes are. Furthermore, the final clause recites “determining a color of a traffic indication direction corresponding to the lamp head shape based on the color corresponding to the lamp head shape”. (emphasis added) However, claims 1 and 15 already refer to such a color and therefore the underlined portion could refer to this previous recitation of this color or the second clause could mean determining a color of a traffic indication direction corresponding to each lamp head shape based on the color corresponding to each lamp head shape. In addition, it is unclear how the color of a single lit light could determine a color corresponding to other lamp head shapes. When looking to the Specification of the published application, Figures 2 and 3 and the related paragraphs appear to correspond to claims 2 and 16. However, Figure 3 and paragraph [0081] clearly indicate that multiple signal lights are lit in order for this analysis to be done. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find claims 2 and 16 as currently worded to be inconsistent with the Specification and would, due to this and the above noted issues, find the meets and bounds of the claims to be unclear.
Dependent claims 3-11 and 17-19 do not cure claims 2 and 16 of these issues and are similarly rejected.
Further regarding claims 4 and 18 the claims recite “obtaining an initial confidence level that the single light shows each different color”. (emphasis added) However, a single light only can be one color as defined in paragraph [0081] of the published application (i.e. based on the color of the bulb). Therefore, it is unclear how a single light could show multiple different colors as required in the claims.
Dependent claims 5-8 and 19 do not cure claims 4 and 18 of these issues and are similarly rejected.
Further regarding claim 9 and also regarding claim 12, the claim inconsistently refers to “the color of the lamp head shape” by switching the articles used before color and lamp leading to confusion on if these are the same recitations or different. Also, the final clause refers to “the historical image frame”; however, there are plural historical image frames previously recited leading to confusion on which historical image frame this refers to.
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, 13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferguson et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,442,487.
Regarding claim 15, Ferguson teaches a vehicle control method, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining an image frame (see Ferguson Figure 2, sensor unit 202 on top of car and column 9, “For example, sensor unit 202 could include any combination of cameras, radars, LIDARs, range finders, and acoustic sensors”) of a traffic light located in a forward direction of a vehicle (see Figure 3A, traffic light 304 in front of vehicle 302 and column 12, “FIG. 3B, FIG. 3C, and FIG. 3D illustrate example images captured by a camera or other image-capture device coupled to an autonomous vehicle, such as vehicle 302 in the scenario depicted in FIG. 3A”);
obtaining a virtual light corresponding to the traffic light using a traffic light perception method and based on the image frame (see Figure 4, step 408); and
performing autonomous driving control on the vehicle based on a color of each traffic indication direction of the virtual light (see Figure 4, step 410);
wherein the traffic light perception method comprises:
sensing and recognizing a current image frame of a traffic light to obtain a lamp head shape and a color of a currently lit single light in the traffic light (see Figure 4, steps 404 and 406);
determining a traffic indication direction of a virtual light corresponding to the traffic light based on the lamp head shape of the single light (see column 18, “In some embodiments, the shape is determined from among a predetermined set of shapes that may correspond to expected shapes of a light indicator. For certain traffic lights, the predetermined set of shapes may include a solid circle, a left arrow, an up arrow, and a forward arrow, although other shapes may be used in certain geographical areas. As another example, the predetermined set of shapes may include a walking stick figure and a hand if the processing system is configured to detect certain pedestrian crossing light indicators. The predetermined set of shapes may vary depending on various situations”); and
determining a color of the traffic indication direction based on the color of the single light, to form a virtual light (see column 18, “As discussed above, the determination of the color and the associated confidence level may be performed using a machine-learning structure and training data. In some embodiments, the color is determined from among a predetermined set of colors that may correspond to expected colors of a light indicator. For certain traffic lights, the predetermined set of colors may include red, yellow, and green, although other colors may be used in certain geographical areas. As another example, the predetermined set of colors may include white and amber if the processing system is configured to detect certain pedestrian crossing light indicators. The predetermined set of colors may vary depending on various situations”).
Claim 1 recites similar limitations as claim 15, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, Ferguson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the step of "determining a traffic indication direction of a virtual light corresponding to the traffic light based on the lamp head shape of the single light" comprises:
obtaining a preset correspondence between a lamp head shape and a traffic indication direction of a virtual light; and determining the traffic indication direction of the virtual light corresponding to the traffic light based on the lamp head shape of the single light and the correspondence (see Ferguson Figure 3C which shows a lamp head shape having a left arrow and column 16, “Based on the processing system determining the traffic light to be a green left arrow, the processing system may provide instructions to control the vehicle corresponding to green left arrows. In some instances, this may involve the control system of the vehicle controlling the vehicle's throttle and steering”).
Regarding claim 20, Ferguson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a computer device, comprising a processor and a storage apparatus storing a plurality of pieces of program codes, wherein the program codes are adapted to be loaded and executed by the processor to perform a traffic light perception method of claim 1 (see Ferguson claim 9).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,442,487 in view of Goto et al, WO 2019/177019 A1 (see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Ferguson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein after the step of "determining a color of the traffic indication direction based on the color of the single light, to form a virtual light", the method further comprises:
performing, in the following manner, tracking and smoothing on a color of the traffic indication direction obtained through the current image frame:
obtaining a plurality of consecutive historical image frames before the current image frame;
obtaining the color of the traffic indication direction obtained through each of the historical image frames; and
voting on a color of the traffic indication direction obtained through each of the current image frame and the historical image frame, and selecting a color with a largest number as a color of the traffic indication direction obtained through the current image frame.
However, Goto in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of determining a color of a traffic light (see Goto paragraph [0050]) as taught in Ferguson comprising
performing, in the following manner, tracking and smoothing on a color of the traffic light obtained through the current image frame:
obtaining a plurality of consecutive historical image frames before the current image frame (see paragraph [0114]);
obtaining the color of the traffic light obtained through each of the historical image frames; and voting on a color of the traffic light obtained through each of the current image frame and the historical image frame, and selecting a color with a largest number as a color of the traffic indication direction obtained through the current image frame (see paragraph [0115]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of voting to smooth out a color of a traffic light as taught in Goto with the method indicating a color of a traffic indication direction taught in Ferguson, the motivation being to effectively filter out false color determinations thereby increasing safety in the method.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,442,487 in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0357667.
Regarding claim 14, Ferguson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein after the step of "determining a color of the traffic indication direction based on the color of the single light, to form a virtual light", the method further comprises:
obtaining a 3D position of the currently lit single light in the traffic light obtained by sensing and recognizing the current image frame of the traffic light; and
associating the virtual light with the 3D position.
However, Zhu in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method comprising obtaining a current image frame of a traffic light (see Zhu Figure 10, steps 10100 and 10250) and creating a virtual light of the traffic light (see Figure 10, step 10550) as taught in Ferguson comprising
obtaining a 3D position of the currently any light in the traffic light obtained by sensing and recognizing the current image frame of the traffic light (see Figure 10, steps 10400-10450 and paragraph [0088]); and
associating the virtual light with the 3D position (see Figure 10, step 10550).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of associating a virtual light with a 3D position of any light in a traffic light as taught in Zhu with the lit single light in a traffic light determined in Ferguson, the motivation being to create accurate digital maps of such lights for future use.
Conclusion
Although no prior art is used against claim 2-11 and 17-19, this is not an indication that it/they is/are allowable. See MPEP 2173.06, section II, second paragraph. The 112 issues cause a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s). It is therefore difficult for the Examiner to properly search for prior art for the invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saito, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0005276 teaches a traffic light recognition method based on taking images (see Saito Figure 2) for a more complicated traffic light structure (see Figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635