Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recites the limitation "the cluster points" in lines 4 and 7 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depends directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 11, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the corner point" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12-20 depends directly or indirectly from claim 11, therefore they are rejected.
Claims 1 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 11 recites “determining, based on the cluster points located at both sides of the corner point—” in lines 8 and 10 respectively. The above recital renders the claim indefinite. Claims 1 and 11 do not positively recite locating cluster points at both sides of the corner point in-order for the determining step to be performed as recited at lines 8 and 10 respectively. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depends directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 11, therefore they are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (US20170015313) hereafter Mei in view of NPL5 (L-Shape Model Switching-Based Precise Motion Tracking of Moving Vehicles Using Laser Scanners, Dongchul Kim et al., IEEE, 2018, Pages 598-612) hereafter NPL5.
1. Regarding claim 1 as best understood by the examiner, Mei discloses a method (figs 1-6 and paras 0038-0043, 0048, 0061-0078 shows and discloses a method) of recognizing a free-space around a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining line segment connecting a first point and a second point of the cluster points obtained by clustering Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) points, wherein the first point and the second point are both end points among the cluster points (figs 4-6 and paras 0048, 0072-0078 shows and discloses determining a line segment 410 connecting a first point and a second point of the cluster points (a first point and the second point connected by a line 410 amongst the three cluster points 400 obtained by clustering Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) points 400, wherein the first point and the second point are both end points among the cluster points (line 410 shows the three cluster points 400 with the first point and the second points and both are the end points amongst the three cluster points 400 meeting the above claim limitations));
determining a corner point from among the cluster points based on the line segment (figs 4-6 and paras 0048, 0072-0078 shows and discloses determining a corner point 430 from the cluster points (three cluster points 400) of an object (351) based on the line segment (410) meeting the above claim limitations));
determining, based on the cluster points located at both sides of the corner point, a segment parameter that cause the cluster points to satisfy a predetermined condition (figs 4-6, paras 0044, 0048, 0072-0078 shows and discloses determining a segment parameter (420) according to a distance (the size adjustment factor β can be a predetermined distance and can be added to the intersection point 430 along the second line 420 meeting the above limitations of determining a segment parameter 420 according to a distance (i.e predetermined condition) in para 0078) between the line segment (410) and the corner point (430) based on the cluster points (400, 405) located at both sides left side and the back side of the object 351 of the corner point 430 meeting the above limitations)); and
generating an L-shaped contour of the object based on the segment parameter to output spatial information including contour information (Figs 4-6, 0038-0041, 0043-0044-0045, 0075-0078 shows and discloses generating an L-shaped contour of the object based on the segment parameter (420) (i.e para 0077 discloses “The second line 420 (segment parameter) can be traversed to the first line 410, thereby forming an L-shape” meeting the above claim limitations) to output spatial information including contour information (i.e output/detect the shape profile (spatial information including inner contour of the object as seen in fig 6) of the detected object) located close to the reference vehicle 100 meeting the above claim limitations), disclose wherein the segment parameter includes parameters defining two line segments that form the L-shaped contour to be generated.
NPL5 discloses wherein the segment parameter includes parameters defining two line segments that form the L-shaped contour to be generated (fig 1 shows the L-Shape feature extraction (i.e clustering and L-Shape extraction (lines L1 and L2)), and figs 3-4, page 601 section C shows and discloses “the L-shape feature (contour) contains the position of the corner point (Xcorner, Ycorner), the length of two lines (L1,L2) and the orientation (Theta) (i.e segment parameter includes three parameters defining the two line segments) meeting the above claim limitations)). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Mei and NPL5 are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor are analogous art of the object detection. The suggestion/motivation would be a dynamic and precise object tracker (page 601 col 2). Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of NPL5 in the method/system of Mei to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
2. Regarding claim 5, Mei and NPL5 discloses the method according to claim 1. Mei discloses further wherein the determining of the corner point includes determining a point having a maximum distance from the line segment among the cluster points as the corner point (fig 6, and para 0078 shows a point 450 having the maximum distance β from the line segment 410 among the cluster points 400, 405 as the corner point 430 meeting the above claims limitations).
3. Regarding claim 9, Mei and NPL5 discloses the method of claim 1. Mei discloses further wherein the contour information includes position information of the first point, position information of the second point, the segment parameter, and position information of the corner point (as seen in fig 6 the contour information includes position information of the first point (first point in the point cluster 400 along line 410), position information of the second point (second point in the point cluster 400 along line 410), the segment parameter (line 420), and position information of the corner point 430 meeting the above claim limitations).
4. Regarding claim 11, as best understood by the examiner, Mei discloses a free-space recognizing system (figs 1-6 and paras 0038-0043, 0048, 0061-0078 shows and discloses a system 100 and a method) comprising:
an interface configured to obtain Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) points from a LiDAR sensor (fig 1, Sensor system interface 125 configured to obtain Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) points from a LiDAR sensor 128); and
a processor connected to the interface electrically or communicatively (fig 1, paras 0045, 0046, 0048, 0057-0059 shows and discloses a processor connected to the interface electrically or communicatively), wherein the processor is configured to perform:
determining a line segment connecting a first point and a second point among the cluster points obtained by clustering the LiDAR points, wherein the first point and the second point are both end points among the cluster points (figs 4-6 and paras 0048, 0072-0078 shows and discloses determining a line segment 410 connecting a first point and a second point of the cluster points (a first point and the second point connected by a line 410 amongst the three cluster points 400 obtained by clustering Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) points 400, wherein the first point and the second point are both end points among the cluster points (line 410 shows the three cluster points 400 with the first point and the second points and both are the end points amongst the three cluster points 400 meeting the above claim limitations));
determining, based on the cluster points located at both sides of the corner point, a segment parameter that cause the cluster points to satisfy a predetermined condition (figs 4-6, paras 0044, 0048, 0072-0078 shows and discloses determining a segment parameter (420) according to a distance (the size adjustment factor β can be a predetermined distance and can be added to the intersection point 430 along the second line 420 meeting the above limitations of determining a segment parameter 420 according to a distance (i.e predetermined condition) in para 0078) between the line segment (410) and the corner point (430) based on the cluster points (400, 405) located at both sides left side and the back side of the object 351 of the corner point 430 meeting the above limitations)); and
generating an L-shaped contour of the object based on the segment parameter to output spatial information including contour information (Figs 4-6, 0038-0041, 0043-0044-0045, 0075-0078 shows and discloses generating an L-shaped contour of the object based on the segment parameter (420) (i.e para 0077 discloses “The second line 420 (segment parameter) can be traversed to the first line 410, thereby forming an L-shape” meeting the above claim limitations) to output spatial information including contour information (i.e output/detect the shape profile (spatial information including inner contour of the object as seen in fig 6) of the detected object) located close to the reference vehicle 100 meeting the above claim limitations),
NPL5 discloses wherein the segment parameter includes parameters defining two line segments that form the L-shaped contour to be generated (fig 1 shows the L-Shape feature extraction (i.e clustering and L-Shape extraction (lines L1 and L2)), and figs 3-4, page 601 section C shows and discloses “the L-shape feature (contour) contains the position of the corner point (Xcorner, Ycorner), the length of two lines (L1,L2) and the orientation (Theta) (i.e segment parameter includes three parameters defining the two line segments) meeting the above claim limitations)). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Mei and NPL5 are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor are analogous art of the object detection. The suggestion/motivation would be a dynamic and precise object tracker (page 601 col 2). Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of NPL5 in the method/system of Mei to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
5. Claim 15 is a corresponding system claim of claim 5. See the corresponding explanation of claim 5.
6. Claim 19 is a corresponding system claim of claim 9. See the corresponding explanation of claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei in view of NPL5 and in further view of KUMAR et al. (US20210096220) hereafter KUMAR.
7. Regarding claim 2, Mei and NPL5 discloses the method according to claim 1. Mei discloses grouping/clustering the LiDAR points as seen in figs 1-6. Mei and NPL5 are however silent and fail to disclose wherein the clustering of the LiDAR points includes: identifying closest points which are closest to the vehicle among the LiDAR points at respective predetermined angular intervals; identifying region of interest (ROI) points which are located within a predetermined ROI among the closest points; determining points within a predetermined threshold distance from each other among the ROI points as the cluster points.
KUMAR discloses wherein the clustering of the LiDAR points includes: identifying closest points which are closest to the vehicle among the LiDAR points at respective predetermined angular intervals (fig 2b and para 0030 shows and discloses the identifying of the path points which are 20 meters from the vehicle 101 and fig 2b also shows the data points in the ROI’s at the predetermined angular distance (i.e perpendicular to the path as seen by the tangents) meeting the above claim limitations); identifying region of interest (ROI) points which are located within a predetermined ROI among the closest points (fig 2b-2c shows the ROI’s and paras 0031-0032 determining ROI points (i.e reflection points 252) forming a pattern by joining points (closest points) forming a predetermined length of 1 meter meeting the above claim limitations); determining points within a predetermined threshold distance from each other among the ROI points as the cluster points (figs 2b-2c and paras 0023, 0040-0042 shows and discloses identifying a distance value such as d1, d2, d3 etc between one or more clusters for each of the one or more ROI’s and also determined if the distance value is less than or greater than the predefined threshold distance meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a predetermined threshold distance are not required by the current claim). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Mei, NPL5 and KUMAR are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of object data processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a novel (i.e improved) method/system at para 0029. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of KUMAR in the method/system of Mei to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
8. Regarding claim 3, Mei, NPL5 and KUMAR disclose the method according to claim 2. KUMAR disclose further wherein the identifying of the closest points is performed based on dividing a space in front of the vehicle into a plurality of cells by the respective predetermined angular intervals (fig 2b and para 0030 shows and discloses wherein the identifying of the closest points is performed based on dividing a space in front of the vehicle into a plurality of cells (ROI’s 3 and 4) by the respective predetermined angular intervals (as seen by the respective tangents 2 and 3) meeting the above claim limitations).
9. Regarding claim 4, Mei, NPL5 and KUMAR disclose the method according to claim 2. KUMAR disclose further wherein the determining of the points within the predetermined threshold distance includes removing outliers from the points within the predetermined threshold distance (paras 0041-0042 discloses detecting the incorrect data points (i.e the outliers) if the distance value is greater than the predetermined threshold distance meeting the above claim limitations).
10. Claim 12 is a corresponding system claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
11. Claim 13 is a corresponding system claim of claim 3. See the corresponding explanation of claim 3.
12. Claim 14 is a corresponding system claim of claim 4. See the corresponding explanation of claim 4.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10, 16-18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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 Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights