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 .
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 3 August 2026.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 11 were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-13 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7 of the Remarks, filed 3 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Maila et al., US 20200043176 A1 in view of Wendel et al., US 20240219565 A1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maila et al., US 20200043176 A1 (“Maila”) in view of Wendel et al., US 20240219565 A1 (“Wendel”).
Regarding claim 1, Maila discloses a method for estimating the speed of a vehicle (Figs. 9, method 720), the method being implemented by a device comprising a lidar sensor installed in an ego-vehicle (Fig. 3A, lidar system 302, vehicle 300, Paragraph [0061]), and a computer (Fig. 3A, vehicle controller 322, Paragraph [0064]), the lidar sensor being of the scanning type in which an observed zone is acquired by moving a line of sight of the lidar sensor in two directions of movement comprising an azimuth scanning direction and an elevation scanning direction so as to cover the observed zone along a plurality of scanning lines (Fig. 1A, scan patterns 160, Paragraph [0058]),
the method comprising the lidar sensor acquiring a point cloud where each point is associated with an initial three-dimensional position (Fig. 9, step 724, Paragraph [0123]; See also: Paragraph [0113]), a time stamp and an azimuth and an elevation orientation of the line of sight of the lidar sensor (Paragraph [0100]: each pixel in point cloud associated with depth and time, Eq. 1: depth coordinate includes (x, y, z) coordinate), and the computer processing the point cloud (Fig. 3A, vehicle controller 322, Paragraph [0064]), comprising:
detecting at least one object, the object being represented by a subset of points of the point cloud (Fig. 9, step 726, Paragraph [0124]);
determining a corrected position of a plurality of points of the object
determining a relative speed between the ego-vehicle and the object, based on a difference between a corrected position and an initial position of at least one point of the object, and based on the time stamp associated with said point (Fig. 9, step 728 - 730, Paragraph [0125], [0128]; See also: Eq. 4 and Paragraph [0105]).
Maila does not teach: determining a corrected position of a plurality of points of the object corresponding to a same azimuth, but different elevations, or a same elevation value, but different azimuths, of the line of sight of the lidar sensor.
However, Wendel teaches a LIDAR system that generates LIDAR point clouds and determines if an object in the point cloud is moving. Wendel teaches configuring the LIDAR to scan the field of view in an x-y-z coordinate plane with scan lines along a horizontal direction (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0055]). In order to determine if the object is moving, the LIDAR determines if the angle of a line of y coordinates at a single x coordinate –in other words, a line corresponding to a same azimuth but different elevations – is slanted (Paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maila’s scanning pattern to scan in a raster pattern such that the scanning data includes points of different elevations but the same azimuth or different azimuths but the same elevation, which is disclosed by Wendel. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one scanning pattern for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
computing a relative speed of a plurality of points of the object based on a difference between the corrected position and the initial position of each point of the plurality of points, and based on the time stamp associated with said point (Maila, Fig. 9, step 728 - 730, Paragraph [0125], [0128]; See also: Eq. 4 and Paragraph [0105]); and
determining a relative speed between the ego-vehicle and the object based on the computed relative speeds for each point of the plurality of points (Maila, Fig. 9, step 730, Paragraph [0125]).
Regarding claim 3, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the detected object is identified as static, and the method further comprises deducing the speed of the ego-vehicle based on the determined relative speed between the ego-vehicle and the object (Maila, Paragraph [0129]).
Regarding claim 4, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the detected object is a vehicle, the speed of the ego-vehicle is known, and the method further comprises deducing the speed of the detected object based on the determined relative speed between the ego-vehicle and the object (Maila, Paragraph [0129]).
Regarding claim 5, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: determining a corrected position of a plurality of points of the object corresponding to the same elevation value of the line of sight of the lidar sensor, so that the corrected positions of the plurality of points are aligned in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the ego-vehicle and parallel to the road (Maila, Fig. 9, step 728 - 730, Paragraph [0125], [0128]; Wendel, Fig. 5, Paragraph [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein detecting an object comprises implementing a point clustering algorithm based on the Euclidean distance between the points. (Maila, Fig. 5, segmentation module 410, Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 10, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses a device for estimating the speed of a vehicle, comprising a lidar sensor able to be installed in an ego-vehicle (Maila, Fig. 3A, lidar system 302, vehicle 300, Paragraph [0061]), and a computer (Maila, Fig. 3A, vehicle controller 322, Paragraph [0064]), the lidar sensor being of the scanning type in which an observed zone is acquired by moving the line of sight of the sensor by azimuth and by elevation in order to scan the zone (Maila, Fig. 1A, scan patterns 160, Paragraph [0058]; Wendel, Fig. 5), wherein the device is configured to implement the method as claimed in claim 1 (Maila, Fig. 9, method 720).
Regarding claim 11, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses a non-transitory computer program product comprising code instructions for implementing the method as claimed in claim 1 (Maila, Paragraph [0156]) when the program is executed by a computer (Maila, Fig. 3A, vehicle controller 322, Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the detected object is identified as static, and the method further comprises deducing the speed of the ego-vehicle based on the determined relative speed between the ego-vehicle and the object (Maila, Paragraph [0129]).
Regarding claim 13, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the detected object is a vehicle, the speed of the ego-vehicle is known (Maila, Paragraph [0126]), and the method further comprises deducing the speed of the detected object based on the determined relative speed between the ego-vehicle and the object. (Maila, Paragraph [0129]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maila in view of Wendel in further view of Chen et al., US 20220153297 A1 (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 6, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, does not teach: further comprising: classifying the detected object as a function of the a height of the object from among two predetermined classes respectively corresponding to high objects and low objects.
However, Chen teaches a sensor system that generates a point cloud with associated radial velocity values. Chen teaches classifying return points of the detected objects into the classes of high objects and low objects based on a height threshold (Fig. 6, threshold 610, return point 620A and 620B, Paragraph [0070]; See also Fig. 8 step 840).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maila’s method by adding a step to classifying objects into two height categories, which is disclosed by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improv downstream computational efficiency during object classification, as suggested by Chen (Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, discloses the method as claimed in claim 5.
Maila, as modified in view of Wendel, does not teach: wherein determining the corrected position of a plurality of points of the object is implemented by classifying the detected object as a function of a height of the object from among two predetermined classes respectively corresponding to high objects and low objects when the object is classified as a low object.
However, Chen teaches a sensor system that generates a point cloud with associated radial velocity values. Chen teaches classifying return points of the detected objects into the classes of high objects and low objects based on a height threshold (Fig. 6, threshold 610, return point 620A and 620B, Paragraph [0070]; See also Fig. 8 step 840 to either step 850 or step 890, Paragraph [0078]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maila’s method by adding a step to classifying objects into two height categories, which is disclosed by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improv downstream computational efficiency during object classification, as suggested by Chen (Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Maila, as modified in view of Wendel and Chen, discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, further comprising, when the object is classified as a high object (Chen, Fig. 8 step 840 to step 890, Paragraph [0078]), determining a corrected position of a plurality of points of the object corresponding to the same azimuth value of the line of sight of the lidar sensor, so that the corrected positions of the plurality of points are aligned in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the ego-vehicle and perpendicular to the road (Maila, Fig. 9, step 728 - 730, Paragraph [0125], [0128]; See also: Fig. 1A and Paragraph [0105]: two pixels either (1) part of same scan line (i.e. displaced along one direction) or (2) part of two parallel scan lines (i.e. displaced along direction orthogonal to first direction)).
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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights