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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/19/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in the Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “point cloud data generation unit,” “surrounding information acquisition unit,” “processing unit,” “time assign unit,” “group generation unit,” “label assign unit,” “route prediction unit,” and “position re-acquisition unit” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s specification and drawings disclose the structure of the “point cloud data generation unit” in for example, FIG. 1 point cloud data generation unit 20, and paragraphs [0011]-[0012]. Applicant’s specification and drawings disclose the structure of the “surrounding information acquisition unit,” in for example, FIG. 1 image sensor 30, and paragraphs [0011]-[0012]. Applicant’s specification and drawings disclose the structure of the “processing unit,” “time assign unit,” “group generation unit,” “label assign unit,” “route prediction unit,” and “position re-acquisition unit” in for example, FIG. 1 processing unit 40 including time assign unit 410, group generation unit 420, label assign unit 430, route prediction unit 440, and position re-acquisition unit 450, and paragraph [0017], which explains implementation of processing unit 40 as a programmed computer processing executing instruction for implementing the functions of time assign unit 410, group generation unit 420, label assign unit 430, route prediction unit 440, and position re-acquisition unit 450 as described in paragraphs [0018]-[0023].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13 lines 2-3, the literal interpretation of “the instructions including a computer-implemented method” is unclear and should be rewritten for improved literal interpretation as “the instructions for implementing a computer-implemented method.”
In claim 15 “connecting” in each of lines 10, 13, and 15 should be replaced with “connects”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and similarly for independent claim 15) includes phrases such as “assigning the at least one group to a plurality of labels” in lines 7-8, “the at least one group provides a moving body” in lines 8-9, “the at least one group provides the moving body” in lines 13-14, and “replacing the at least one group” … “with a position at acquisition time of the related data,” that appear to be semantically incorrect or are at least unclear such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to interpret the meaning of these phrases with reasonable certainty therefore causing uncertainty in determining the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, and as best understood in view of Applicant’s overall disclosure (specification and drawings), the foregoing phrases are interpreted as follows:
“assigning the at least one group to a plurality of labels” is interpreted as “assigning a plurality of labels to the at least one group” (note the consistency with “the at least one group assigned a moving body on-flag in the moving body label” in lines 10-11;
“the at least one group provides a moving body” and “the at least one group provides the moving body” are interpreted as “the at least one group represents a moving body” and “the at least one group represents the moving body”;
“replacing the at least one group” … “with a position at acquisition time of the related data” is interpreted as “re-placing the at least one group” … “to a position corresponding to an acquisition time at which the related data was acquired”;
“a device for acquiring surrounding information” – it is unclear what is meant by “surrounding information”. The examiner respectfully requests that the applicant clarify what information this refers to and what, if any, constraints this limitation places on the device being recited.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected for the same reasons.
Independent claim 15 includes substantially similar phraseology and is likewise rejected for the same reasons and interpreted in the same manner.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and is likewise rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 4 is further rejected under 112(b) for including similarly unclear phraseology as cited above for claim 1 and specifically “replacing the at least one group” … “with a position at acquisition time of three-dimensional data acquired by at least one of” in lines 5-6 and “connecting the acquisition time of the three-dimensional data to the at least one group” in lines 8-9.
Consistent the foregoing interpretations set forth for claim 1, “replacing the at least one group” … “with a position at acquisition time of three-dimensional data acquired by at least one of” is interpreted as “re-placing the at least one group” … “to a position corresponding to an acquisition time at which three-dimensional data is acquired by at least one of.” The phrase “connecting the acquisition time of the three-dimensional data to the at least one group” is interpreted as “associating the acquisition time of the three-dimensional data with the at least one group.”
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each of these claims is directed to the abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 15, substantially representative also of claim 1, recites:
“[a] device for connecting a point cloud data with a related data, comprising:
a point cloud data generation unit that emits measurement light and generates a plurality of sets of point cloud data including information of a point cloud connected to three-dimensional position information based on reflected light from an object;
a surrounding information acquisition unit that acquires the related data that provides surrounding information; and
a processing unit that generates at least one group by classifying the point cloud in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data, predicts a moving route of the at least one group, replaces the at least one group with a position at acquisition time of the related data, and connecting the acquisition time of the related data to the at least one group, wherein:
the processing unit includes:
a time assign unit that connecting the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data to acquisition time of the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data, and connecting the related data to acquisition time of the related data;
a group generation unit that generates the at least one group by classifying the point cloud in each of two or more of sets of point cloud data;
a label assign unit that assigns each of the at least one group to a plurality of labels including a position label and a moving body label indicating whether the at least one group provides a moving body;
a route prediction unit that predicts a moving route of the at least one group assigned a moving body on-flag in the moving body label based on the position label of the at least one group, which is included in each of the two or more of sets of point cloud data and assigned the moving body on-flag indicating that the at least one group provides the moving body; and
a position re-acquisition unit that replaces the at least one group to which the moving object on-flag is assigned with a position at the acquisition time of the related data based on the moving route.”
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above and the remaining features are “additional elements.”
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 13 recites a method and therefore falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portions of claim 15 fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and the mathematical concepts category (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The recited functions:
“connecting a point cloud data with a related data,” “generates at least one group by classifying the point cloud in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data,” “predicts a moving route of the at least one group,” “replaces the at least one group with a position at acquisition time of the related data, and connecting the acquisition time of the related data to the at least one group,”
“generates the at least one group by classifying the point cloud in each of two or more of sets of point cloud data;”
“assigns each of the at least one group to a plurality of labels including a position label and a moving body label indicating whether the at least one group provides a moving body;”
“predicts a moving route of the at least one group assigned a moving body on-flag in the moving body label based on the position label of the at least one group, which is included in each of the two or more of sets of point cloud data and assigned the moving body on-flag indicating that the at least one group provides the moving body;” and
“replaces the at least one group to which the moving object on-flag is assigned with a position at the acquisition time of the related data based on the moving route,”
may be performed as mental processes.
For example, connecting a point cloud data with a related data may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgement to derive connections/associations between point cloud data and related data). As a further example, generating a group by classifying a point cloud may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation of displayed points in a point cloud and judgement to ascertain a corresponding object). As a further example, assigning a group to a plurality of labels including a position label and a moving body label indicating whether the at least one group provides a moving body may also be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation of group classification and judgement to ascertain position and whether the object is a moving object (e.g., vehicle)). As a further example, predicting a moving route of a group assigned/determined as a moving body based on the position label, which is included in each of the two or more of sets of point cloud data and assigned the moving body on-flag indicating that the at least one group provides the moving body” may also be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation of time/position information of the object group possibly aided by pen-and-paper to estimate a predicted moving route). As a further example, replacing a group with a position at the acquisition time of the related data based on the moving route may also be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation of moving route and timing(s) of related data acquisition(s) to determine corresponding re-placing/re-positioning of the group).
The recited function “generates at least one group by classifying the point cloud in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data,” and similarly “generates the at least one group by classifying the point cloud in each of two or more of sets of point cloud data” in claim 15 is further determined by the Examiner as falling within the mathematical relationships sub-category of mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) because generating groups via classification of point cloud data is fundamentally characterized by mathematical calculations (e.g., statistics, geometric clustering via relative distance relations) and therefore constitutes mathematical relationships.
The recited function “predicts a moving route of the at least one group,” and similarly “predicts a moving route of the at least one group assigned a moving body on-flag in the moving body label based on the position label of the at least one group, which is included in each of the two or more of sets of point cloud data and assigned the moving body on-flag indicating that the at least one group provides the moving body,” in claim 15 is further determined by the Examiner as falling within the mathematical relationships sub-category of mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) because predicting a moving route of a point cloud group based on position data is fundamentally characterized by mathematical calculations (e.g., uniform linear approximation calculation and/or Kalman filter as disclosed in Applicant’s specification) and therefore constitutes mathematical relationships.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether the claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception” (MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
MPEP § 2106.04(d) sets forth considerations to be applied in Step 2A, Prong Two for determining whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claim 15 and applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most applicable of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, none of the “additional elements” including “a point cloud data generation unit that emits measurement light and generates a plurality of sets of point cloud data including information of a point cloud connected to three-dimensional position information based on reflected light from an object,” “a surrounding information acquisition unit that acquires the related data that provides surrounding information,” a “processing unit” that includes “a time assign unit that connecting the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data to acquisition time of the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data, and connecting the related data to acquisition time of the related data” and further includes various other units for implementing the steps falling within the judicial exception in any combination appear to integrate the abstract idea in a manner that technologically improves any aspect of a device or system that may be used to implement the highlighted step or a device for implementing the highlighted step such as a signal processing device or a generic computer. The elements “a point cloud data generation unit that emits measurement light and generates a plurality of sets of point cloud data including information of a point cloud connected to three-dimensional position information based on reflected light from an object” and “a surrounding information acquisition unit that acquires the related data that provides surrounding information,” represent routine, conventional, high-level data acquisition means for multi-sensor systems such as those employing point cloud sensing and other cooperative imaging sensors, and thus constitute insignificant extra solution activity that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The elements “processing unit” that includes “a time assign unit that connecting the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data to acquisition time of the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data, and connecting the related data to acquisition time of the related data” and further includes various other units for implementing the steps represents routine, conventional data processing components/functionality for implementing the underlying functions that fall within the judicial exception. A time assign unit that connects the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data to acquisition time of the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data, and connects the related data to acquisition time of the related data, represents routine, conventional data collection in the field because it is standard practice and essentially necessary to associate acquisition times to sensor gathered distance/imaging data to form point cloud and other imaging data that may be utilized for positioning, distance tracking, and dynamic motion characteristics.
Regarding application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, the additional elements are configured and implemented in a conventional rather than a particularized manner of implementing multi-sensor object imaging.
Regarding a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, claim 15 does not include any such transformation or reduction. Instead, claim 15 as a whole entails receiving input information (point cloud data and surrounding information), applying standard processing techniques (computer processing) to the information to determine image information and related motion information with the additional elements failing to provide a meaningful integration of the abstract idea in an application that transforms an article to a different state. Instead, the additional elements represent extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claim 15 does not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 15 is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, and as explained in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in claim 15 constitute extra solution activity and therefore fail to result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception as well as failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements largely appear to be generic and well understood as evidenced by the disclosures of Wang (US 10,976,410) and Lee (US 2019/0340775 A1), each of which teach substantially similar components for imaging data collection and processing of the imaging data.
Wang teaches a system/method for connecting/associating point cloud data with related data including “a point cloud data generation unit that emits measurement light and generates a plurality of sets of point cloud data (FIG. 5 Lidar 136 and radar 134; col. 4 lines 2-4),” “a surrounding information acquisition unit that acquires the related data that provides surrounding information (FIG. 5 radar 134 and camera 140; col. 4 lines 46-51),” and a “processing unit” for implementing various processing tasks such as “connecting the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data to acquisition time of the point cloud data in each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data, and connecting the related data to acquisition time of the related data (col. 15 lines 25-55 object data associated with measurement time points)” and the method steps falling within the judicial exception (FIG. 1 processor 122, col. 6 line 61 through col. 7 line 10; FIG. 5 detector 550; col. 7 lines 24-38; col. 8 lines 25-43). Similarly, Lee discloses a system/method for connecting/associating point cloud data with related data including a point cloud data generation unit that emits measurement light and generates a plurality of sets of point cloud data ([0014]-[0015] LIDAR for generating point cloud data) and a surrounding information acquisition unit that acquires the related data that provides surrounding information ([0015] camera for capturing image data of environment), and in which the various processing functions are implemented by a processor (FIG. 6 processors 604, [0073]-[0074]).
Therefore, the additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 15 is therefore not patent eligible under 101.
Claim 1 includes substantially the same elements as claim 15 that fall within the judicial exception and includes so further significant additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception
Claim 1 is therefore likewise not patent eligible under 101 for the same reasons.
Claims 2-14 depending from claim 1, and claim 16 depending from claim 15, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm that includes the abstract idea of the respective independent claim (Step 2A, Prong One). None of dependent claims 2-14 and 16 recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two), and all fail the “significantly more” test under the step 2B for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
For example, claim 2 further characterizes the generating step as including “surrounding the point cloud included in each of the at least one group by a three-dimensional rectangular box for each of the at least one group,” which represents routine, conventional processing of collecting point cloud data of interest (bounding box (BBOX)) and therefore constitutes extra solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The element “assigning the position label to at least one vertex of the three-dimensional rectangular box,” falls within the mental processes judicial exception because it may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgement).
Claim 3 recites that the generating step further includes assigning one or more of various types of labels to a group, which falls within the mental processes exception because it may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgement).
Claim 4 characterizes the device for acquiring the surrounding information as an image sensor that acquires two-dimensional image data, and acquisition of three-dimensional data by one of a millimeter wave radar, a sonar, and a device using infrared light or laser light all of which which represent conventional and high-level data collection having no particularized functional relation to the underlying processing steps and therefore constitutes extra solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 4 further recites steps of “replacing the at least one group to which the moving body on-flag is assigned with a position at acquisition time of three-dimensional data” and “connecting the acquisition time of the three-dimensional data to the at least one group” each of which falls within the mental processes judicial exception for reasons substantially similar to those set forth for the “replaces and “connecting” steps in claim 15 and corresponding “replacing” and “connecting” steps in claim 1.
Claim 5 further characterizes the generating of the at least one group as being executed by an algorithm for grouping the point cloud, which similar to the step that “generates at least one group” in claim 15 falls within the mental processes exception and the mathematical concepts exception.
Each of claims 6 and 7 characterizes the point cloud data as having been collected at regular time intervals and such characterization fails to remove the underlying processing functions performed on the point cloud data from judicial exception or to otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner notes that neither of claims 6 and 7 clearly and positively recites that the method includes performing a step of acquiring data at regular intervals.
Claim 8 further characterizes the predicting of the moving route as being executed by “a method of non-linearly predicting the moving route of the at least one group to which the moving body on-flag is assigned using a Kalman filter or a particle filter,” which falls within the mathematical relations sub-category of the mathematical concepts exception because Kalman filtering is fundamentally characterized by mathematical relations/calculations.
Similarly to claims 6 and 7, claims 9-11 further characterize the point cloud data as having been acquired at intervals (e.g., closest) with respect to the acquisition time of the “related data” and such characterization fails to remove the underlying processing functions performed on the point cloud data from the judicial exceptions or to otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites “converting data in the at least one group replaced with the position at the acquisition time of the related data into a two-dimensional data by projecting the data in the at least one group replaced with the position at the acquisition time of the related data in a direction to which the device for acquiring the surrounding information is directed,” which falls within the mathematical relations subcategory of the mathematical concepts judicial exception because converting three-dimensional position information into two-dimensional position information is fundamentally characterized by mathematical relations/calculations (trigonometry and coordinate geometry). Claim 12 further recites “recognizing an object included in the related data; and connecting a recognition result with the at least one group” each of which fall within the mental processes judicial exception because each may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgement).
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that includes the instructions, which represents routine, conventional data processing structure for implementing the functions falling within the judicial exception and therefore constitutes extra solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites a data result (training data set) of the processing, which represents routine, conventional data processing (output results of processing) that constitutes extra solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites one or more processors for implementing one or more of the execution units recited in claim 15, which represents routine, conventional data processing structure for implementing the functions falling within the judicial exception and therefore constitutes extra solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 is further rejected under 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 14 recites “a training data set,” which does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter under 101.
Subject Matter Distinguishable Over the Prior Arts
Claims 1-16, as best understood by the examiner, are tentatively found to be patentably distinct over the prior arts.
The reasons for finding claims 1-16 patentably distinct over the prior arts are as follows.
Regarding claim 1, the most pertinent prior arts are represented by Wang (US 10,976,410).
As to claim 1, and as best understood in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 1 under 112(b), Wang teaches “[a] method of connecting a point cloud data with a related data (FIG. 5 Lidar 136 used in conjunction/association with radar 134 and camera 140 by perception system 154), comprising:
preparing a plurality of sets of point cloud data (FIG. 5 Lidar 136 (inherently generates point cloud data) and radar 134 that per col. 4 lines 1-4 generates point cloud data (Examiner notes that in context of ongoing perception operations (e.g., sensing during vehicle operation per col. 14 lines 33-39]) multiple sets of cloud point data would be generated related to surrounding objects)), each of the plurality of sets of point cloud data including information of a point cloud connected to three-dimensional position information (col. 14 lines 33-61) tracker 510 uses sensor information (radar, Lidar, camera) for determining tracking (positional) information for objects (three-dimensional entities) in surrounding environment (three-dimensional). Examiner further notes that point cloud data is inherently three-dimensional in aspect; col. 14 line 66 through col. 15 line 9), and each of the plurality of point cloud data connected to acquisition time (col. 15 lines 25-55 object data associated with measurement time points);
generating at least one group by classifying the point cloud in each of two or more of sets of point cloud data (col. 14 lines 21-32 sensor data classified in terms of object sensed), and assigning the at least one group to a plurality of labels including a position label (col. 14 lines 28-30 detector determines (associates with the sensed data) position information such as velocity; col. 14 lines 35-39 tracker associates consecutive sensor observations to generate a positional information of an object in the form of a track; col. 14 lines 52-57 tracks may include position and velocity associated with object) and a moving body label indicating whether the at least one group provides a moving body (col. 14 lines 22-32 object classification may include determining features of object including velocity and moving direction; col. 14 lines 52-57 and 62-66 tracks may include velocity associated with object);
predicting a moving route of the at least one group assigned a moving body on-flag in the moving body label based on the position label of the at least one group (FIG. 6 track predictor 630 generating predicted state data 659 based on track (position) data 655; col. 15 lines 46-55 predicted state data includes predicted track), which is included in each of the two or more of sets of point cloud data and assigned the moving body on-flag indicating that the at least one group provides the moving body (col. 14 lines 22-32 object classification may include determining features of object including velocity and moving direction; col. 14 lines 52-57 and 62-66 tracks may include velocity associated with object).”
Wang further teaches a form of reacquisition of points related to the same object and using the “moving route” for such reacquisition using “a device for acquiring surrounding information” (col. 17 line 63 through col. 18 line 26).
Neither Wang nor other prior arts considered teaches re-placing/repositioning a “point cloud group,” which is classified from point cloud data having a respective acquisition time, is associated with three-dimensional position information, and that represents a moving object, to a position corresponding to an acquisition time at which “related data” is acquired by a device for acquiring “surrounding information.” This finding by the examiner is tentative, in that the scope of these limitations is presently unclear, as discussed above with respect to 112(b).
Therefore, the examiner tentatively finds that the prior art prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest (as interpreted in view of the grounds for rejecting claim 1 under 112(b)), “replacing the at least one group, to which the moving body on-flag is assigned, with a position at acquisition time of the related data that is acquired by a device for acquiring surrounding information, according to the moving route, and connecting the acquisition time of the related data to the at least one group,” taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and are likewise patentably distinguishable over the prior arts for the same reasons.
Independent claim 15 includes substantially the same elements that distinguish claim 1 from the prior arts and is likewise patentably distinguishable over the prior arts for the same reasons.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and is likewise patentably distinguishable over the prior arts for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is (571)272-2507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/MATTHEW W. BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857