DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 contains the following limitations in question:
A LIDAR navigation system comprising:
one or more light source;
one or more light sensor, a processor operatively connected to said light source and said light sensor configured to:
control emission of light from said light source to scan a measurement field of view (FOV);
generate LIDAR 3D data sets over a time, using sensor measurements received by said one or more light sensor where each LIDAR 3D data set corresponds to said measurement FOV.
The examiner proposes corrections to make the claims more grammatically appropriate. The language of “one or more light source” and “one or more light sensor” should be corrected to “one or more light sources” and “one or more light sensors”. Furthermore, since the recited light source and light sensor have been introduced as to “one or more light sources” and “one or more light sensors”, the subsequent limitations referencing “said light source” and “said light sensor” should also be changed to “said one or more light sources” and “said one or more light sensors” to improve clarity of the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method of processing of LIDAR measurement data comprising:
receiving successive LIDAR 3D data sets over a time from a LIDAR system moving, during said time, through space, each LIDAR 3D data set corresponding to a measurement field of view (FOV) of said LIDAR system;
identifying a plurality of objects in said LIDAR 3D data sets;
designating at least one of said plurality of objects as at least one potential aggressor object;
tracking position of said one or more potential aggressor objects relative to said LIDAR system as said one or more potential aggressor objects move outside of said measurement FOV of said LIDAR system; and
characterizing one or more of said plurality of objects as one or more multi-path object using tracked position of said one or more potential aggressor objects.
Claim 20 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method of processing of LIDAR measurement data comprising:
receiving successive LIDAR 3D data sets, each LIDAR 3D data set corresponding to a measurement field of view (FOV) of said LIDAR system;
identifying a plurality of objects measured in said LIDAR 3D data sets; characterizing at least a portion of said plurality of objects as aggressor objects or non-aggressor objects;
generating a model comprising positions, with regards to said LIDAR system, of said plurality of objects over time, including determined position of said at least a portion of said plurality of objects characterized as aggressor objects outside of said FOV of said LIDAR system;
determining if one or more of said plurality of objects of said model is a ghost object, failing to correspond to a real object, using said determined position of said one or more objects characterized as aggressor objects.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations of receiving successive LIDAR 3D data sets equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-18 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations, further describe the type of LIDAR sensor data received, and/or add insignificant extrasolution data activity, i.e. receiving movement sensor data or providing/outputting data. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Examiner recommends incorporating limitations in relation to incorporating LIDAR navigation system into claims 1 and 20, along with some type of controlling limitation to tie the recited abstract idea to a practical application of the data analysis.
Examiner Note:
Independent claim 19 expressly recites limitations of a “LIDAR navigation system”, “control emission of light from said one or more light sources to scan a measurement field of view”, and “generate LIDAR 3D data sets over a time, using sensor measurements received by said one or more light sensors”, which are additional elements. These are recited in combination with the recited abstract idea for analyzing the LIDAR 3D data sets to identify ghost objects in the data set. These additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the Claim Objections set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art Donovan (US 20180259623) discloses a LIDAR navigation system (see Abstract) comprising:
one or more light source (see paragraph 0022: light source);
one or more light sensor, a processor operatively connected to said light source and said light sensor (see paragraphs 0022, 0039, and 0041: receiver/light detector for receiving light coupled to controller; and controller also configured to control firing pattern of laser sources) configured to:
control emission of light from said light source to scan a measurement field of view (FOV) (see paragraphs 0022, 0039, and 0041: controller configured to control firing pattern of laser sources across desired FOV);
generate LIDAR 3D data sets using sensor measurements received by said one or more light sensor where each LIDAR 3D data set corresponds to said measurement FOV (see paragraph 0022: 3D point could/data set).
The prior art Longman (US 20210104027) discloses generating LIDAR data over time (see paragraph 0045: vehicle travels in X direction during measurements; and see paragraph 0036: track objects with each new detection, i.e. must receive successive data sets);
identify objects in said LIDAR 3D data sets to provide one or more identified objects (see paragraphs 0014 and 0036: detest first and second object, i.e. plurality of objects; and see paragraph 0044: identifies reflective surface and its shape);
designate one or more of said identified objects as one or more potential aggressor objects (see paragraph 0044: identifies reflective surface and its shape, meets limitations an aggressor object according to applicant’s specification);
tracking position of said one or more potential aggressor objects relative to said LIDAR system (see Figs 2 and 4 and paragraphs 0036 and 0049: generates a model to represent and track positions of objects, includes the previously discussed reflective surface); and
characterize one or more of said identified objects as ghost objects using tracked position of said one or more potential aggressor objects (see Title, Fig. 4, and paragraph 0008-0009, 0036, and 0041: classifies object as a multipath ghost object, based on the analyzing the geometrical relationship of the objects including the reflective surface).
However, the prior art of record fails to disclose tracking position of said one or more potential aggressor objects as they move outside of a measurement FOV of said LIDAR system; and
characterize one or more of said identified objects as ghost objects using tracked position of said one or more potential aggressor objects.
Examiner Note: Claims 1-18 and 20 are distinguished over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art Longman (US 20210104027) discloses method of processing of LIDAR measurement data (see Abstract and paragraphs 0034 and 0036: method of processing LIDAR sensor data) comprising:
receiving successive LIDAR data sets over a time from a LIDAR system moving, during said time, through space, each LIDAR data set corresponding to a measurement field of view (FOV) of said LIDAR system (see paragraphs 0002, 0014, and 0034: reflected energy is received by the radar/LIDAR system and analyzed to determining information about detected objects, analysis done by processor, i.e. processor receives LIDAR data; see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0045: vehicle travels in X direction during measurements; and see paragraph 0036: track objects with each new detection, i.e. must receive successive data sets);
identifying a plurality of objects in said LIDAR 3D data sets (see paragraphs 0014 and 0036: detest first and second object, i.e. plurality of objects; and see paragraph 0044: identifies reflective surface and its shape);
designating at least one of said plurality of objects as at least one potential aggressor object (see paragraph 0044: identifies reflective surface and its shape, meets limitations an aggressor object according to applicant’s specification);
tracking position of said one or more potential aggressor objects relative to said LIDAR system (see Figs 2 and 4 and paragraphs 0036 and 0049: generates a model to represent and track positions of objects, includes the previously discussed reflective surface); and
characterizing one or more of said plurality of objects as one or more multi-path object using tracked position of said one or more potential aggressor objects (see Title, Fig. 4, and paragraph 0008-0009, 0036, and 0041: classifies object as a multipath ghost object, based on the analyzing the geometrical relationship of the objects including the reflective surface).
Ferguson (US 20150266471) discloses that LIDAR data can be 3D data sets, each LIDAR 3D data set corresponding to a measurement field of view (FOV) of said LIDAR system (see Abstract and paragraph 0025: 3D point cloud data set; and see paragraph 0175: consecutive scans).
However, the prior art of record fails to disclose tracking position of said one or more potential aggressor objects relative to said LIDAR system as said one or more potential aggressor objects move outside of said measurement FOV of said LIDAR system; and
characterizing one or more of said plurality of objects as one or more multi-path object using tracked position of said one or more potential aggressor objects.
In particular, the prior art does not track the position of said one or more of the identified potential aggressor objects, i.e. aggressor objects previous identified in the FOV of the LIDAR data, as it moves outside of the measurement FOV of the LIDAR system, then characterizing one or more of said plurality of objects as one or more multi-path object using tracked position of said one or more potential aggressor objects that have moved outside to the LIDAR FOV.
Regarding claim 2-18, the prior art of record fails to disclose the claims due to their dependency upon parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art Longman (US 20210104027) discloses a method of processing of LIDAR measurement data (see Abstract and paragraphs 0034 and 0036: method of processing LIDAR sensor data) comprising:
receiving successive LIDAR data sets, each LIDAR data set corresponding to a measurement field of view (FOV) of said LIDAR system (see paragraphs 0002, 0014, and 0034: reflected energy is received by the radar/LIDAR system and analyzed to determing information about detected objects, analysis done by processor, i.e. processor receives LIDAR data; see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0045: vehicle travels in X direction during measurements; and see paragraph 0036: track objects with each new detection, i.e. must receive successive data sets);
identifying a plurality of objects measured in said LIDAR data sets (see paragraphs 0014 and 0036: detest first and second object, i.e. plurality of objects; and see paragraph 0044: identifies reflective surface and its shape);
characterizing at least a portion of said plurality of objects as aggressor objects or non-aggressor objects (see paragraph 0044: identifies reflective surface and its shape, meets limitations an aggressor object according to applicant’s specification);
generating a model comprising positions, with regards to said LIDAR system, of said plurality of objects over time, including determined position of said at least a portion of said plurality of objects characterized as aggressor objects inside of said FOV of said LIDAR system (see Figs 2 and 4 and paragraphs 0036 and 0049: generates a model to represent and track positions of objects, includes the previously discussed reflective surface);
determining if one or more of said plurality of objects of said model is a ghost object, failing to correspond to a real object, using said determined position of said one or more objects characterized as aggressor objects (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0008-0009, 0036, and 0041: classifies object as a ghost object, based on the analyzing the geometrical relationship of the objects including the reflective surface).
Ferguson (US 20150266471) discloses that LIDAR data can be 3D data sets, each LIDAR 3D data set corresponding to a measurement field of view (FOV) of said LIDAR system (see Abstract and paragraph 0025: 3D point cloud data set; and see paragraph 0175: consecutive scans).
However, the prior art of record fails to disclose generating a model comprising positions, with regards to said LIDAR system, of said plurality of objects over time, including determined position of said at least a portion of said plurality of objects characterized as aggressor objects outside of said FOV of said LIDAR system;
determining if one or more of said plurality of objects of said model is a ghost object, failing to correspond to a real object, using said determined position of said one or more objects characterized as aggressor objects.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith (US 20180120842) discloses identifying multipath reflections and ghost object, including vehicles that are not in the direct line of sight of a LIDAR system.
Maucher (US 20210303879) discloses analyzing LIDAR data to detect phantom object/ghost objects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857