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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: "a length of a corresponding candidate straight line". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: "a current time frame". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZOU, Xin, CN 111487641 A.
Regarding claim 1, Zou teaches a system wherein; A method for detecting, based on Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), an object around a vehicle which includes a LiDAR sensor, the method comprising: determining, by a controller, a first object from a point cloud within a detecting range ([0093] utilizing a point cloud to determine an object); and determining, by the controller, a heading angle of the first object by a first method, wherein the first method including: determining, by the controller, candidate straight lines for the heading angle of the first object ([0081] determining velocity vectors for the heading angle of an object); and determining, by the controller, the heading angle of the first object from angles of the candidate straight lines (determining the heading angle vector based on object point cloud and lidar [0034]).
Regarding claim 19, Zou teaches a system wherein; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program code which is configured to perform a method when executed by a computer processor, the method comprising: determining a first object from a point cloud within a detecting range; and determining a heading angle of the first object by a first method, wherein the first method including: determining candidate straight lines for the heading angle of the first object; and determining the heading angle of the first object from angles of the candidate straight lines. (Storage medium to store computer code, [0092], utilizing a point cloud to determine an object [0093], determining velocity vectors for the heading angle of an object, [0081], determining the heading angle vector based on object point cloud and lidar [0034])
Regarding claim 20, Zou teaches an apparatus comprising: a LiDAR sensor; and a controller configured for performing object detection from a point cloud within a detecting range obtained by the LiDAR sensor, wherein the object detection including: determining a first object from a point cloud within a detecting range; and determining a heading angle of the first object by a first method, and wherein the first method including: determining candidate straight lines for the heading angle of the first object; and determining the heading angle of the first object from angles of the candidate straight lines. (Controller preforming detecting operations, [0044], utilizing a point cloud to determine an object [0093], determining velocity vectors for the heading angle of an object, [0081], determining the heading angle vector based on object point cloud and lidar [0034])
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) 2,10,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU, Xin, CN 111487641 A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robert Goeddel et al, US20220194436A1.
Regarding claim 2, Zou teaches:
The method in claim 1,
Zou does not teach determining the heading angle through a weighted sum of the angles of the candidate straight lines
Goeddel teaches, wherein the determining of the heading angle of the first object from the angles of the candidate straight lines includes obtaining a weighted sum of the angles of the candidate straight lines. (Weighted sum of heading vectors [0054])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified Zou such that the heading vectors are weighted and summed to determine an object heading angle similar to Goeddel with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of greatly increasing the accuracy of the calculation of the heading angle allowing for quicker and more precise edge detection within the established boundary.
Regarding claim 10, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detection range include a predetermined area and the first object is determined from the predetermined area. (Goeddel, detect and track objects in an operating environment, [0046])
Regarding claim 14, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 10, further including: tracking and managing, by the controller, a history of the first object being located in the predetermined area; and determining, by the controller, the heading angle of the first object by the first method for a current time frame in response to the first object including a history located in the predetermined area and located out of the predetermined area in the current time frame. (Goeddel, a method of tracking and storing the history of an object, [0075], Goeddel, determining the heading angle of an object using spatial information, [0084].)
Claim(s) 5-7,17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU, Xin, CN 111487641 A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kan Fu, US20220066020A1.
Regarding claim 5, Zou teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
Zou does not teach,
wherein the candidate straight lines are determined from a plurality of straight lines passing through LiDAR points of the first object or approximate points determined from the LiDAR points.
Fu teaches,
wherein the candidate straight lines are determined from a plurality of straight lines passing through LiDAR points of the first object or approximate points determined from the LiDAR points. (Fu, Plurality of straight lines passing through lidar points to determine non-outlier lidar points, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the detection method of Zou to determine candidate lines via point vector determination using a plurality of vectors similar to the method of Fu. This would have the predictable result of quicker and more accurate elimination of point outliers.
Regarding claim 6, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the approximation points are determined from representative points of occupied cells in an approximation grid map for the LiDAR points. (Fu, approximation points determination from a lidar map, [0043])
Regarding claim 7, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 5, wherein a line of a length less than a predetermined length among the plurality of straight lines is removed from the plurality of straight lines. (Fu, approximation points removed from a lidar map, [0043])
Regarding claim 17, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, further including determining a shape box for the first object depending on the heading angle. (Fu, determining minimized bounding box based on the heading angle, [0036])
Claim(s) 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU, Xin, CN 111487641 A as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Robert Goeddel et al, US20220194436A1.
Regarding claim 8, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 5,
wherein lines overlapping with a rectangle having a predetermined width and a predetermined length (Fu, lidar points overlapping with a boundary rectangle, [0017])
Zou does not teach,
among the plurality of straight lines are integrated into one straight line.
Goeddel teaches,
among the plurality of straight lines are integrated into one straight line. (Goeddel, integrating a plurality of vectors into a singular vector, [0068])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the detection method of Zou to incorporate the vector integration method similar to that of Goeddel. This would have the predictable result of increasing the processing speed in determining the main candidate vector of the object.
Regarding claim 9, Goeddel as modified above teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the LiDAR points of the first object are determined by dividing cloud points for the first object into a plurality of circular sections each including a predetermined azimuth range with respect to an origin of a coordinate system, and extracting a point closest to the origin in each of the circular sections. (Goeddel, first object determined based on lidar data, [0069], Fu, a plurality of regions each including an angle with respect to the origin point to extract lidar points, [0036]).
Claim(s) 11,12,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU, Xin, CN 111487641 A as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kan Fu, US20220066020A1.
Regarding claim 11, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 10,
Zou does not teach,
wherein the predetermined area includes a boundary extending from the vehicle in a right or left lateral direction within the detecting range.
Fu teaches,
wherein the predetermined area includes a boundary extending from the vehicle in a right or left lateral direction within the detecting range. (Fu, boundary extending from the vehicle in the left and right lateral directions, [FIG. 1])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the detection method of Zou to incorporate a range boundary method similar to Fu. This would have the predictable result of increasing point vector determination speed greatly by reducing the processing of the points to only the points within the boundary.
Regarding claim 12, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the boundary matches at least a portion of an edge of a field of view (FOV) of the LiDAR sensor. (Fu, the boundary region is based the portion and second portion of the snapshot, [0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 14, further including determining, by the controller, the heading angle of the first object by a second method for the current time frame in response to the first object located apart from the vehicle by a predetermined or greater distance in the current time frame, wherein the second method includes: determining a bounding box which has a minimal result value obtained by adding shortest distances from each external point to an edge of the bounding box among a plurality of predetermined bounding boxes fitted to surround contour points of the first object as a shape box for the first object; and determining a heading angle of the first object from an inclination angle of the bounding box. (Fu, a bounding box fitted to surround contour points of the object indicating an orientation and a dimension [0010], determining a bounding region to minimize a sum of distances [0011], distances determined from each detection point to a boundary, [0012])
Regarding claim 16, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 10, further including: determining, by the controller, a second object located outside the predetermined area from the point cloud; and determining, by the controller, a heading angle of the second object by a second method, wherein the second method includes: determining a bounding box which has a minimal result value obtained by adding shortest distances from each external point to an edge of the bounding box among a plurality of predetermined bounding boxes fitted to surround contour points of the first object as a shape box for the first object; and determining a heading angle of the first object from an inclination angle of the bounding box. (Fu, a bounding box fitted to surround contour points of the object indicating an orientation and a dimension [0010], determining a bounding region to minimize a sum of distances [0011], distances determined from each detection point to a boundary, [0012], Goeddel, second object identification [0069])
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU, Xin, CN 111487641 A as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Robert Goeddel et al, US20220194436A1. and further in view of Kan Fu, US20220066020A1.
Regarding claim 18, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 1,
Zou does not teach,
further including: before determining the heading angle of the first object by the first method, determining an initial heading angle and an initial shape information of the first object by a second method and determining a track of the first object based on the initial heading angle and the initial shape information; and in response to the first object including a history of being located in a predetermined area within the detecting range, replacing the initial heading angle with the heading angle determined by the first method and determining shape information of the first object according to the replaced heading angle, wherein the second method includes: determining a bounding box which has a minimal result value obtained by adding shortest distances from each external point to an edge of the bounding box among a plurality of predetermined bounding boxes fitted to surround contour points of the first object as a shape box for the first object; and determining a heading angle of the first object from an inclination angle of the bounding box.
Goeddel teaches:
further including: before determining the heading angle of the first object by the first method, determining an initial heading angle and an initial shape information of the first object by a second method and determining a track of the first object based on the initial heading angle and the initial shape information; and in response to the first object including a history of being located in a predetermined area within the detecting range, replacing the initial heading angle with the heading angle determined by the first method and determining shape information of the first object according to the replaced heading angle, (Goeddel, a method of tracking and storing the history of an object, [0075], Goeddel, determining the heading angle of an object using spatial information, [0084].)
Goeddel does not teach,
wherein the second method includes: determining a bounding box which has a minimal result value obtained by adding shortest distances from each external point to an edge of the bounding box among a plurality of predetermined bounding boxes fitted to surround contour points of the first object as a shape box for the first object; and determining a heading angle of the first object from an inclination angle of the bounding box.
Fu teaches,
wherein the second method includes: determining a bounding box which has a minimal result value obtained by adding shortest distances from each external point to an edge of the bounding box among a plurality of predetermined bounding boxes fitted to surround contour points of the first object as a shape box for the first object; and determining a heading angle of the first object from an inclination angle of the bounding box. (Fu, a bounding box fitted to surround contour points of the object indicating an orientation and a dimension [0010], determining a bounding region to minimize a sum of distances [0011], distances determined from each detection point to a boundary, [0012]), Fu, determining minimized bounding box based on the heading angle, [0036])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the detection method of Zou to incorporate a method of tracking and storing the history of an object and determine it’s heading using that spatial data similar to that of Goeddel This would have the predictable result of decreasing processing time and increasing angle determination accuracy. From here it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Zou to include a method for determining a bounding box to minimize a sum of distances similar to that of Fu. This would have the predictable result of reducing the number of points needed to process in order to determine the heading angle of the object thus reducing the amount of required processing power without sacrificing processing speed.
Claim(s) 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU, Xin, CN 111487641 A as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chen; Mingcheng, US 20220128995 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 2,
Zou does not teach, wherein a weight for each candidate straight line is determined according to a length of a corresponding candidate straight line.
Mingcheng teaches weighting according to distance from object to sensor, (weight determination according to distance, [0053])
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zou such that vectors are weighted according to their distance similar to Mingcheng with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of more accurate object identification and vector calculations.
Regarding claim 4, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the weight is determined to be proportional to the length of the corresponding candidate straight line. (Weight determination proportional to length, [0053])
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZOU, Xin, CN 111487641 A as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of M Cox, CN114730017A.
Regarding claim 13, Zou as modified above teaches the method of claim 11,
Zou doesn’t teach, wherein the predetermined area is defined by a predetermined azimuth angle range from the boundary with respect to an origin of the vehicle or a location of the LiDAR sensor.
Cox teaches, the lidar sensor having a specific detection range defined by the azimuth angular range in which laser signals can be emitted and corresponding reflection signals be received (detection area bounded within an azimuth angular range, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zou such that objects are detected within a predetermined angular range similar to Baumann with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing the processing power required in determining the heading angle of the object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR20210057312A, Lee Kyoung Jun et al. – Apparatus and Method for Identifying Short Cut-in Target
JP2011123551A, Miyasaka Takeo et al. – Dead Corner Area Estimation Device and Program
KR20200046136, Han Seul Ki et al. Apparatus and Method for Identifying Short Cut in Vehicle and Vehicle Including the Same
KR20210124789A, Noh Mi Rim et al. – Apparatus for Recognizing Object Based on Lidar Sensor and Method Thereof
CN113859228A, Li Jingwei et al. – Vehicle Control Method and Device, Electronic Equipment and Storage Medium
JP2009306747, Yanagi Hiroyoshi et al. – Ambient Condition Monitoring System for Vehicle. And Video Display Method
KR20200067506A, Lee Hoon et al. – Apparatus and Method for Preforming Omnidirectional Sensor-Fusion and Vehicle Including the Same
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN CESARE TRIDICO whose telephone number is (571)270-1048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 6:00-3:00, Friday: 8:00-12:00.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/JOHN CESARE TRIDICO/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights