DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 14th August, 2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended; claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 were cancelled; no new Claims were added; therefore, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 are pending in current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14th August, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “generate a LIDAR point cloud….is determined to be translucent matter) are not recited in the rejected claims. Therefore, the issue of whether Nitsch or Pfeiffer addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Wachter in the present Office Action.
In response to applicant’s argument filed on 14th August, 2026, page 10, paragraph 2, that Nitsch teaches using photo-histograms from a receiving element…different LIDAR targets along a beam.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nitsch disclosed in [0015], the sensor involves a solid-state Lidar sensor, wherein the method comprises the performance of light transit time measurements for at least one defined measuring interval and wherein the method comprises the generation of the photon histogram per measuring interval based upon the light transmit time measurements. Therefore, in each time interval, two reflected signals, as stated in paragraph [0086]-[0087], two return signals are detected includes a first target located in the visual field of the receiving element, which in bins 21-25 delivers measuring results with a maximum at bin 24, so that a distance of the detected target approx. 71m. The peak 45 shows a characteristic shape for an object, so that it can concluded that the target involves an object. Another peak 45 located in bins 7-9 that fog (can be determined from the shape of the peak 45) is present in the visual field of the receiving element with a distance around 21-27 m), are detected which implies the emitting signal has two portion and are reflected from different targets. Thus, Nitsch’s invention teaches LIDAR emits beam along a path comprising two portions and each reflected from different targets.
In response to applicant’s argument filed on 14th August, 2026, page 10, paragraph 2, that Pfeiffer fails to disclose determine the distance between the two targets…as non-translucent or translucent.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pfeiffer disclosed in Fig. 4, column 14, line 59, the emitters 404 may emit a lidar pulse 410 into the environment 400. The pulse 410 may be partially reflected by a first portion of the object 408 (e.g., by particles in a first portion of the object 408), resulting in a return pulse 412; column 13, line 65, because the object 408 is a non-impeding object, the emitted lidar pulse 410 may continue through the object 408 to reflect off a second portion of the object 408, resulting in a return pulse 416; column 15, line 24, a distance for the return pulses 412 and 416 may also be measured by determining a distance from the lidar system 402 to the object 408 based on the return pulses 412 and 416 to determine a distance for the lidar point 414 and 418 (equivalent to determine a distance difference between a first position of the matter along the first path and a second position of the additional matter along the second path), respectively; Any one or more of such measurements and any other measurements that may be made using return lidar pulses may be used as described herein to determine a probability that the non-impeding object has been properly designated as a non-impeding object.
Pfeiffer further disclosed in column 15, line 67, when processed using the disclosed non-impeding object probability operations, lidar points associated with return pulses that are reflections of the same emitted lidar pulse and that have relative significantly different associated distances (implies there is a threshold to compare) may increase the probability that a non-impeding object has been correctly designated. This is because it is more like that the associated return pulses reflected from surfaces or portions of an object that are relatively distance from one another, such as portions of a particle matter object. Alternatively, lidar points associated with the same emitted lidar pulse and that have relatively similar associated distances (implies there is a threshold to compare) may decrease the probability that a non-impeding object has been correctly designated because it is more likely that the return pulses reflected form surfaces or portion of an object that are relatively close to one another, such as surfaces of a solid object; column 11, line 42, disclosed there is a threshold comparison to determine if the probability meets or exceeds a threshold to ensure a non-impeding object designations is maintained or not. Therefore, Pfeiffer satisfied the limitation stated above.
In response to applicant’s argument filed on 14th August, 2026, page 12, paragraph 3, that the Examiner’s motivation to combine Nitsch and Pfeiffer fails to provide sufficient “suggestion or incentive”…
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reason to combine Nitsch and Pfeiffer is using the method that Pfeiffer provided to determine whether the object is translucent or non-translucent and report back to the vehicle computing system, which may plan a trajectory that disregards that object because a non-impeding object will not impede the travel of a vehicle through an environment. This is the action after determining the translucent object and indicating that the point cloud of the related object is not solid object such that to ignore the object during operation of the vehicle. A newly amended limitation of claim 1 regarding to “generate a LIDAR point cloud…..be translucent matter” is addressed below.
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) 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitsch et al. (US 20230316712 A1, hereinafter “Nitsch”), modified in view of Pfeiffer et al. (US 12461241 B1, hereinafter “Pfeiffer”), in view of Wachter et al. (US 20210132197 A1, hereinafter “Wachter”).
Regarding claim 1, Nitsch teaches a system comprising:
A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) device (Nitsch; [0015], the sensor involves a solid-state Lidar sensor, wherein the method comprises the performance of light transit time measurements for at least one defined measuring interval and wherein the method comprises the generation of the photon histogram per measuring interval based upon the light transmit time measurements);
a memory (Nitsch; [0062], the device includes evaluation unit comprises a computing unit with a memory; [0015], a solid-state Lidar sensor); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory and the LIDAR device (Nitsch; [0062], the device includes evaluation unit comprises a computing unit with a memory; [0064], the invention comprises a computer program product, which comprises a computer-readable storage medium, in which a program is stored that allows a computer, once it has been loaded into the memory of the computer, to implement a method described above, possible in conjunction with a device described above), the one or more processors being configured to cause the LIDAR device (Nitsch; [0015], the sensor involves a solid-state Lidar sensor, wherein the method comprises the performance of light transit time measurements for at least one defined measuring interval and wherein the method comprises the generation of the photon histogram per measuring interval based upon the light transmit time measurements):
transmit a LIDAR beam along a path, wherein the LIDAR beam comprises a first portion and a second portion (Nitsch; [0015], the sensor involves a solid-state Lidar sensor, wherein the method comprises the performance of light transit time measurements for at least one defined measuring interval and wherein the method comprises the generation of the photon histogram per measuring interval based upon the light transmit time measurements).
receive at least two LIDAR returns associated with the LIDAR beam, wherein the at least two LIDAR returns include a primary return comprising the first portion of the LIDAR beam reflected from a first target along the path of the LIDAR beam and a secondary return comprising a second portion of the LIDAR beam reflected from a secondary target along the path of the LIDAR beam (Nitsch; Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0084], shows an exemplary photon histogram 40, which was obtained from a receiving element and is designed as a 1D array 41. It comprises bins 42, here for example 30 pieces, in which the detections 43 detected within a defined measuring interval 46 are recorded; [0086]-[0087], two return signals are detected includes a first target is located in the visual field of the receiving element, which in bins 21-25 delivers measuring results with a maximum at bin 24, so that a distance of the detected target approx. 71m. The peak 45 shows a characteristic shape for an object, so that it can concluded that the target involves an object. Another peak 45 located in bins 7-9 that fog (can be determined from the shape of the peak 45) is present in the visual field of the receiving element with a distance around 21-27 m; please also see response to argument above);
the first position being determined based on the primary return and the second position being determined based on the secondary return (same as above);
Nitsch does not teach,
determine a distance difference between a first position of the matter along the first path and a second position of the additional matter along the second path,
compare the distance difference with a threshold;
determine that the secondary target that generated the secondary return by reflecting the second portion of the LIDAR beam is a non-translucent matter if the difference is below the threshold and is a translucent matter if the distance difference is above the threshold.
Generate a LIDAR point cloud based on the primary LIDAR return, wherein the LIDAR point cloud comprises points based on the secondary return if the secondary target is determined to be translucent matter.
Pfeiffer disclosed in Fig. 4, column 14, line 59, the emitters 404 may emit a lidar pulse 410 into the environment 400. The pulse 410 may be partially reflected by a first portion of the object 408 (e.g., by particles in a first portion of the object 408), resulting in a return pulse 412; column 13, line 65, because the object 408 is a non-impeding object, the emitted lidar pulse 410 may continue through the object 408 to reflect off a second portion of the object 408, resulting in a return pulse 416; column 15, line 24, a distance for the return pulses 412 and 416 may also be measured by determining a distance from the lidar system 402 to the object 408 based on the return pulses 412 and 416 to determine a distance for the lidar point 414 and 418 (equivalent to determine a distance difference between a first position of the matter along the first path and a second position of the additional matter along the second path), respectively; Any one or more of such measurements and any other measurements that may be made using return lidar pulses may be used as described herein to determine a probability that the non-impeding object has been properly designated as a non-impeding object.
Pfeiffer further disclosed in column 15, line 67, when processed using the disclosed non-impeding object probability operations, lidar points associated with return pulses that are reflections of the same emitted lidar pulse and that have relative significantly different associated distances (implies there is a threshold to compare) may increase the probability that a non-impeding object has been correctly designated. This is because it is more like that the associated return pulses reflected from surfaces or portions of an object that are relatively distance from one another, such as portions of a particle matter object. Alternatively, lidar points associated with the same emitted lidar pulse and that have relatively similar associated distances (implies there is a threshold to compare) may decrease the probability that a non-impeding object has been correctly designated because it is more likely that the return pulses reflected form surfaces or portion of an object that are relatively close to one another, such as surfaces of a solid object; column 11, line 42, disclosed there is a threshold comparison to determine if the probability meets or exceeds a threshold to ensure a non-impeding object designations is maintained or not.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the system taught by Nitsch to include comparing the distance difference between two return signals with a threshold to determine whether the matter is a non-translucent matter or a translucent matter taught by Pfeiffer with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is comparing the distance difference between two return signals with a threshold to determine if the matter is a non-translucent matter or a translucent matter (Pfeiffer; column 11, line 42; column 13, line 65; column 14, line 59; column 15, line 24; column 15, line 67).
However, Nitsch modified in view of Pfeiffer still not teach,
Generate a LIDAR point cloud based on the primary LIDAR return, wherein the LIDAR point cloud comprises points based on the secondary return if the secondary target is determined to be translucent matter.
Wachter disclosed in Fig. 7A, [0101], the lidar system 100 may classify the surface as either an object to be avoided (such as by an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle) or as air particulates associated with the volumetric medium based, at least in part, on the determined amount of pulse elongation (706). Information indicating the classification of the surface and/or the determined amount of pulse elongation may be used to increase the accuracy of mapping information (such as a point cloud) generated by the LIDAR system 100; [0102] The LIDAR system 100 may generate a corresponding point in a point cloud indicative of objects detected in the environment based on at least one of the classification of the surface and the determined amount of pulse elongation (707).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the system taught by Nitsch to include comparing the distance different between two return signals with a threshold to determine whether the matter is a non-translucent matter or a translucent matter taught by Pfeiffer, include Generate a LIDAR point cloud based on the primary LIDAR return, wherein the LIDAR point cloud comprises points based on the secondary return if the secondary target is determined to be translucent matter taught by Wachter by with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that the lidar system 100 may classify the surface as solid object or as air particulates associated with the volumetric medium. Then Information is used to increase the accuracy of mapping information (such as a point cloud) generated by the LIDAR system 100 indicative of objects detected in the environment based on at least one of the classification of the surface and the determined amount of pulse elongation (Wachter; [0101]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 4, Nitsch as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 1.
Nitsch does not teach,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
in response to determining that the additional matter is the translucent matter, transmit a message to a computing system associated with an autonomous vehicle indicating that the additional matter is translucent.
Wachter disclosed in Fig. 7, [0101], the lidar system 100 may classify the surface as either an object to be avoided (such as by an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle) or as air particulates associated with the volumetric medium based, at least in part, on the determined amount of pulse elongation (706). Information indicating the classification of the surface and/or the determined amount of pulse elongation may be used to increase the accuracy of mapping information (such as a point cloud) generated by the LIDAR system 100;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the system taught by Nitsch to include comparing the distance different between two return signals with a threshold to determine whether the matter is a non-translucent matter or a translucent matter taught by Pfeiffer, include Generate a LIDAR point cloud based on the primary LIDAR return, wherein the LIDAR point cloud comprises points based on the secondary return if the secondary target is determined to be translucent matter; wherein the one or more processors are configured to: in response to determining that the additional matter is the translucent matter, transmit a message to a computing system associated with an autonomous vehicle indicating that the additional matter is translucent taught by Wachter with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that the lidar system 100 may classify the surface as solid object or as air particulates associated with the volumetric medium. Then Information is used to increase the accuracy of mapping information (such as a point cloud) generated by the LIDAR system 100 indicative of objects detected in the environment based on at least one of the classification of the surface and the determined amount of pulse elongation (Wachter; [0101]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 5, Nitsch as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the primary return has a higher signal intensity than the secondary return (Nitsch; Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0086]-[0087], a first target is located in the visual field of the receiving element, which in bins 21-25 delivers measuring results with a maximum at bin 24 (equivalent to higher signal intensity) with distance of the detected target of 71m. Another peak 45 in bins 7-9 that fog is present in the visual field of the receiving element with a distance around 21-27 m. Clearly seen the peak 45 with maximum at bin 24 is the primary return signal (right hand signal 45 in Fig. 5) which has higher signal intensity than the second return (left hand signal 45 in Fig. 5)).
Regarding claim 6, Nitsch as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the translucent matter includes at least one of vapor, steam, water splash, fog, rain, a translucent object, and dust (Nitsch; [0086], it can be concluded based upon the peak 45 in bins 7-9 that fog is present in the visual field of the receiving element. In other words, the target responsible for the peak can be classified as fog. The fog is located at a distance of about 21-27m. This can be determined from the shape of the peak 45. This makes it possible to arrive a statement about an environmental condition; Pfeiffer; column 1, line 67, a non-impeding object may be an object that does not impede the motion of vehicle in the environment, such as an object composed of find particulate matter (e.g., smoke, fog, steam, dust, etc.)).
Regarding claim 7, Nitsch as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the LIDAR beam is emitted by a LIDAR sensor mounted on an autonomous vehicle (Nitsch; [0063], the invention relates to a vehicle with a device according to the invention and preferably a control unit described above).
Claims 8 and 12-14 are the method claims possess nearly identical limitation to those of claims 1-3 and 5-7 and are thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 11, Nitsch as modified above teaches the method as recited in claim 8,
Nitsch does not teach,
further comprising:
in response to determining that the additional matter is the translucent matter, transmit an instruction to a computing system associated with an autonomous vehicle to drive through the translucent matter.
Pfeiffer disclosed in column 9, line 35, for those objects determined to be likely accurately designated as non-impeding objects, the vehicle computing system may disregard them (meaning to ignore the object as an solid object which is needed to change the trajectory for the vehicle to avoid collision) when planning a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle. This means the vehicle computing system disregard the detected non-impeding objects information which implies the drive trajectory will not be changed and the car will drive through the non-impeding object. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the combination of Nitsch, Pfeiffer and Wachter is not teaches away from current application because after determining the object is non-impeding object from Nitsch and Pfeiffer, Wachter generate a corresponding point in a point cloud indicative of objects detected in the environment based on at least one of the classification of the surface and the determined amount of pulse elongation (707) (Wachter; [0101]-[0102]). Since the objects determined as non-impeding objects, the vehicle computing system (Pfeiffer; column 9, line 35) plans a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to drive through the object without change the direction as expected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the method taught by Nitsch to include comparing the distance different between two return signals with a threshold to determine whether the matter is a non-translucent matter or a translucent matter; in response to determining that the additional matter is the translucent matter, transmit an instruction to a computing system associated with an autonomous vehicle to drive through the translucent matter taught by Pfeiffer, include Generate a LIDAR point cloud based on the primary LIDAR return, wherein the LIDAR point cloud comprises points based on the secondary return if the secondary target is determined to be translucent matter taught by Wachter with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is after determining the object is non-impeding objects, the vehicle computing system may ignore them (not a collision object) when planning a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle (Pfeiffer; column 9, line 35). This means the vehicle computing system identify the detected object is a non-impeding objects information which implies the drive trajectory will not be changed and the car will drive through the non-impeding object.
Regarding claim 15, Nitsch teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors (Nitsch; [0064], the invention comprises a computer program product, which comprises a computer-readable storage medium, in which a program is stored that allows a computer, once it has been loaded into the memory of the computer, to implement a method described above, possibly in conjunction with a device described above; [0062], the device includes evaluation unit comprises a computing unit with a memory), cause the one or more processors to:
transmit a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) beam along a path, wherein the LIDAR beam comprises a first portion and a second portion (Nitsch; [0015], the sensor involves a solid-state Lidar sensor, wherein the method comprises the performance of light transit time measurements for at least one defined measuring interval and wherein the method comprises the generation of the photon histogram per measuring interval based upon the light transmit time measurements).
receive at least two LIDAR returns associated with the LIDAR beam, wherein the at least two LIDAR returns include a primary return comprising the first portion of the LIDAR beam reflected from a first target along the path of the LIDAR beam and a secondary return comprising the second portion of the LIDAR beam reflected from a secondary target along the path of the LIDAR beam (Nitsch; Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0084], shows an exemplary photon histogram 40, which was obtained from a receiving element and is designed as a 1D array 41. It comprises bins 42, here for example 30 pieces, in which the detections 43 detected within a defined measuring interval 46 are recorded; [0086]-[0087], two return signals are detected includes a first target is located in the visual field of the receiving element, which in bins 21-25 delivers measuring results with a maximum at bin 24, so that a distance of the detected target approx. 71m. The peak 45 shows a characteristic shape for an object, so that it can concluded that the target in volves an object. Another peak 45 located in bins 7-9 that fog (can be determined form the shape of the peak 45) is present in the visual field of the receiving element with a distance around 21-27 m);
the first position being determined based on the primary return and the second position being determined based on the secondary return (same as above);
Nitsch does not teach,
determine a distance difference between a first position of the matter along the first path and a second position of the additional matter along the second path,
compare the distance difference with a threshold; and
determine that the secondary target that generated the secondary return by reflecting the second portion of the LIDAR beam is a non-translucent matter if the distance difference is below the threshold and is a translucent matter if the distance difference is above the threshold; and
generate a LIDAR point cloud based on the primary LIDAR return, wherein the LIDAR point cloud comprises points based on the secondary return if the secondary target is determined to be translucent matter.
Pfeiffer disclosed in Fig. 4, column 14, line 59, the emitters 404 may emit a lidar pulse 410 into the environment 400. The pulse 410 may be partially reflected by a first portion of the object 408 (e.g., by particles in a first portion of the object 408), resulting in a return pulse 412; column 13, line 65, because the object 408 is a non-impeding object, the emitted lidar pulse 410 may continue through the object 408 to reflect off a second portion of the object 408, resulting in a return pulse 416; column 15, line 24, a distance for the return pulses 412 and 416 may also be measured by determining a distance from the lidar system 402 to the object 408 based on the return pulses 412 and 416 to determine a distance for the lidar point 414 and 418 (equivalent to determine a distance difference between a first position of the matter along the first path and a second position of the additional matter along the second path), respectively; Any one or more of such measurements and any other measurements that may be made using return lidar pulses may be used as described herein to determine a probability that the non-impeding object has been properly designated as a non-impeding object.
Pfeiffer further disclosed in column 15, line 67, when processed using the disclosed non-impeding object probability operations, lidar points associated with return pulses that are reflections of the same emitted lidar pulse and that have relative significantly different associated distances (implies there is a threshold to compare) may increase the probability that a non-impeding object has been correctly designated. This is because it is more like that the associated return pulses reflected from surfaces or portions of an object that are relatively distance from one another, such as portions of a particle matter object. Alternatively, lidar points associated with the same emitted lidar pulse and that have relatively similar associated distances (implies there is a threshold to compare) may decrease the probability that a non-impeding object has been correctly designated because it is more likely that the return pulses reflected form surfaces or portion of an object that are relatively close to one another, such as surfaces of a solid object; column 11, line 42, disclosed there is a threshold comparison to determine if the probability meets or exceeds a threshold to ensure a non-impeding object designations is maintained or not.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Nitsch to include comparing the distance difference between two return signals with a threshold to determine whether the matter is a non-translucent matter or a translucent matter taught by Pfeiffer with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is comparing the distance difference between two return signals with a threshold to determine if the matter is a non-translucent matter or a translucent matter (Pfeiffer; column 11, line 42; column 13, line 65; column 14, line 59; column 15, line 24; column 15, line 67).
However, Nitsch modified in view of Pfeiffer still not teach,
generate a LIDAR point cloud based on the primary LIDAR return, wherein the LIDAR point cloud comprises points based on the secondary return if the secondary target is determined to be translucent matter.
Wachter disclosed in Fig. 7, [0101], the lidar system 100 may classify the surface as either an object to be avoided (such as by an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle) or as air particulates associated with the volumetric medium based, at least in part, on the determined amount of pulse elongation (706). Information indicating the classification of the surface and/or the determined amount of pulse elongation may be used to increase the accuracy of mapping information (such as a point cloud) generated by the LIDAR system 100; [0102] The LIDAR system 100 may generate a corresponding point in a point cloud indicative of objects detected in the environment based on at least one of the classification of the surface and the determined amount of pulse elongation (707).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Nitsch to include comparing the distance different between two return signals with a threshold to determine whether the matter is a non-translucent matter or a translucent matter taught by Pfeiffer, include Generate a LIDAR point cloud based on the primary LIDAR return, wherein the LIDAR point cloud comprises points based on the secondary return if the secondary target is determined to be translucent matter taught by Wachter with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that the lidar system 100 may classify the surface as solid object or as air particulates associated with the volumetric medium. Then Information is used to increase the accuracy of mapping information (such as a point cloud) generated by the LIDAR system 100 indicative of objects detected in the environment based on at least one of the classification of the surface and the determined amount of pulse elongation (Wachter; [0101]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 18, Nitsch as modified above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 15.
Nitsch does not teach, comprising further instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to:
in response to determining that the additional matter is the translucent matter, transmit an instruction to a computing system associated with an autonomous vehicle to drive through the translucent matter.
Pfeiffer disclosed in column 9, line 35, for those objects determined to be likely accurately designated as non-impeding objects, the vehicle computing system may disregard them (meaning to ignore the object as an solid object which is needed to change the trajectory for the vehicle to avoid collision) when planning a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle. This means the vehicle computing system disregard the detected non-impeding objects information which implies the drive trajectory will not be changed and the car will drive through the non-impeding object. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the combination of Nitsch, Pfeiffer and Wachter is not teaches away from current application because after determining the object is non-impeding object from Nitsch and Pfeiffer, Wachter generate a corresponding point in a point cloud indicative of objects detected in the environment based on at least one of the classification of the surface and the determined amount of pulse elongation (707) (Wachter; [0101]-[0102]). Since the objects determined as non-impeding objects, the vehicle computing system (Pfeiffer; column 9, line 35) plans a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to drive through the object without change the direction as expected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Nitsch to include comparing the distance different between two return signals with a threshold to determine whether the matter is a non-translucent matter or a translucent matter; in response to determining that the additional matter is the translucent matter, transmit an instruction to a computing system associated with an autonomous vehicle to drive through the translucent matter taught by Pfeiffer, include Generate a LIDAR point cloud based on the primary LIDAR return, wherein the LIDAR point cloud comprises points based on the secondary return if the secondary target is determined to be translucent matter taught by Wachter with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is after determining the object is non-impeding objects, the vehicle computing system may ignore them (not a collision object) when planning a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle (Pfeiffer; column 9, line 35). This means the vehicle computing system identify the detected object is a non-impeding objects information which implies the drive trajectory will not be changed and the car will drive through the non-impeding object.
Regarding claim 19, Nitsch as modified above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 15, wherein the primary return has a higher signal intensity than the secondary return (Nitsch; Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0086]-[0087], a first target is located in the visual field of the receiving element, which in bins 21-25 delivers measuring results with a maximum at bin 24 (equivalent to higher signal intensity) with distance of the detected target of 71m. Another peak 45 in bins 7-9 that fog is present in the visual field of the receiving element with a distance around 21-27 m. clearly seen the peak 45 with maximum at bin 24 is the primary return signal (right hand signal 45 in Fig. 5) which has higher signal intensity than the second return (left hand signal 45 in Fig. 5)).
Regarding claim 20, Nitsch as modified above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 15, wherein the translucent matter includes at least one of vapor, steam, water splash, fog, rain, and dust (Nitsch; [0086], it can be concluded based upon the peak 45 in bins 7-9 that fog is present in the visual field of the receiving element. In other words, the target responsible for the peak can be classified as fog. The fog is located at a distance of about 21-27m. This can be determined from the shape of the peak 45. This makes it possible to arrive a statement about an environmental condition; Pfeiffer; column 1, line 67, a non-impeding object may be an object that does not impede the motion of vehicle in the environment, such as an object composed of find particulate matter (e.g., smoke, fog, steam, dust, etc.)).
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 CHIA-LING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 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)270-3630. 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.
/CHIA-LING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
