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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 06/26/2026.
Claims 1, 11, 14, 17 and 20 have been amended.
Claim 10 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 have newly added.
Claims 1-9, and 11-21 are presented for examination.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. “US 2023/0069691 A1” (Chun) in view of Jeong “US 2021/0389463 A1” (Jeong).
Regarding Claim 1: A performed by a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining, by the processors of the vehicle, objects by grouping LiDAR points of the LiDAR data to obtain clusters corresponding respectively to the objects through data processing (at least see Chun Abstract; Fig. 1; [0011]);
selecting, by the pressor, from the objects, candidate objects having a size equal to or smaller than a predetermined size,
determining, by the processor, at least one object cluster by grouping the candidate objects according to a predetermined position condition (at least see Chun Abstract; Figs. 7-9; [0026]); and
outputting, by the processor, information about at least one first cluster from the at least one object cluster (at least see Chun Abstract; Figs. 2-3; [0020]).
Chun disclose the claimed invention but fails to explicitly discloses the following. But Jeong discloses the following:
obtaining, via a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor mounted on the vehicle, LiDAR data of a surrounding environment of the vehicle while the vehicle travels (at least see Jeong Abstract; Fig. 1; [0003] and [0052]); and by configuring the information to be utilized for driving of the vehicle causing utilization of the output information for driving of the vehicle (at least see Jeong Abstract; Fig. 1; [0032]; note “[0032] The LIDAR data clustering apparatus 100 according to the exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure may be implemented inside the vehicle. In particular, the LIDAR data clustering apparatus 100 may be integrally formed with internal control units of the vehicle, or may be implemented as a separate device to be connected to control units of the vehicle by a separate connection means. The LIDAR data clustering apparatus 100 may be configured to cluster point data of raw data outputted from the LIDAR sensor 200 to provide information of the clustered area to the autonomous driving control apparatus 400. In particular, the point data included in the raw data may include X, Y, and Z coordinates (position coordinates of objects), layer numbers (differentiating layers in voxels), and density. Accordingly, the LIDAR data clustering apparatus 100 may be configured to recognize an object based on information included in the point data.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Jeong’s teachings in Chun’s enabled, for the advantage of LiDAR is a technique for detect an object to enable autonomous driving in a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined size comprises a longitudinal size and a transverse size (at least see Chun [0115]).
Regarding Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined position condition comprises a distance condition and an angle range condition between the candidate objects (at least see Chun [0105]).
Regarding Claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining at least one candidate cluster of the at least one object cluster according to a predetermined cluster condition; and determining, from the at least one candidate cluster and as the at least one first cluster, at least one small-traffic-equipment cluster (at least see Chun [0013]-[0017]).
Regarding Claim 5: The method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined cluster condition comprises at least one of a first condition such that a quantity of the candidate objects in the at least one object cluster is equal to or greater than a first predetermined value, a second condition such that a sum of distances between the candidate objects is equal to or greater than a second predetermined value, a third condition such that an average distance between the candidate objects is equal to or less than a third predetermined value, and a fourth condition such that a longitudinal distance from a host vehicle to the at least one candidate cluster is equal to or less than a fourth predetermined value (at least see Chun Abstract; Fig. 3; [0011]-[0013]).
Regarding Claim 6: The method of claim 4, wherein determining the at least one first cluster comprises determining at least one closest candidate cluster closest to a left side or a right side of a host vehicle among the at least one candidate cluster, and determining the at least one small-traffic-equipment cluster among the at least one closest candidate cluster (at least see Chun [0011]).
Regarding Claim 7: The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a new tracking region for the at least one first cluster or updating a tracking region of a previous time frame based on a correlation between a region of a current time frame of the at least one first cluster and the tracking region of the previous time frame (at least see Chun [0075]).
Regarding Claim 8: The method according to claim 7, wherein the correlation is determined based on a predicted region in the current time frame which is predicted from the tracking region of the previous time frame (at least see Chun [0003]).
Regarding Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein outputting the information comprises assigning flags indicating small-traffic-equipment to objects belonging to the at least one first cluster (at least see Chun [0026]).
Regarding Claim 21: The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the predicted region is determined based on a position change of the vehicle and an attitude change of the vehicle, wherein the correlation is determined by determining whether the predicted region and a cluster region of the current time frame exist within one lane, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors further cause the apparatus to cause, based on the output information, an autonomous steering control of the vehicle (at least see Jeong Abstract; Figs. 1 and 6; [0003] and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Jeong’s teachings in Chun’s enabled, for the advantage of LiDAR is a technique for detect an object to enable autonomous driving in a vehicle.
Regarding Claims 11-20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-9 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, and 11-21 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.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights