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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Apparatus for tracking objects and determining a likelihood of whether the object is moving or is stationary”.
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 5-7 and 15-17 are 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the claims currently state “the at least one grid map comprises first grid map, a second grid map, and a third grid map … generate the second grid map using lidar point information of the object determined to be stationary, and generate the third grid map using lidar point information of the object determined to be moving”. Parent claims 2 and 12 also state “generate at least one grid map to determine whether the object is moving or stationary” thereby creating a circular logic where the grid map is used to determine motion of the object but is also built from other grid maps that require the object stationary/moving determination to have already been made. In addition, it is also unclear how the same object can be “determined to be stationary” and “determined to be moving”. For these two reasons, the intended scope of the claims are unclear and require amendment and/or explanation.
NOTE: Due to the contradictory nature of the current claim language a proper scope for examination (nor applicant’s intended scope) cannot be determined, therefore no art rejection has been provided below.
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected because they incorporate the language of claims 5 and 15.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2022/0048530 by Wyffels.
2) Regarding claim 1, Wyffels teaches an object tracking apparatus comprising: a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor (figure 1, item 122; paragraph 25; a LiDAR sensor); and one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (figure 1, items 132 and 134; processor and memory), cause the object tracking apparatus to: receive lidar data from the lidar sensor and track an object using the received lidar data (figure 6; paragraph 51; lidar data is received to identify objects [i.e. track]); determine, based on a predetermined criterion and information about the object, at least one of: a first score indicating a likelihood that the object is moving, or a second score indicating a likelihood that the object is stationary (paragraphs 19 and 20; probabilities that an object is static or dynamic is determined based upon lidar data, transforms of previous point cloud data, parameters of objects classifiers [paragraph 28], etc.); output a comparison result value of a comparison between the first score and the second score; and determine, based on the comparison result value, whether the object is moving or stationary (figure 4; paragraph 39; static/dynamic label probabilities are compared and object is determined to be labeled according to the comparison [i.e. high static probability vs. low dynamic probability is a comparison]).
3) Regarding claim 2, Wyffels teaches the object tracking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the object tracking apparatus to: generate at least one grid map to determine whether the object is moving or stationary, and generate a data grid map using the generated at least one grid map (paragraph 33; point cloud data set produces a map of area around vehicle of labels static/dynamic objects).
4) Regarding claim 3, Wyffels teaches the object tracking apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the object tracking apparatus to: match track data of the object with the data grid map; and analyze grid information of at least one grid overlapped with at least one object in a matching map of the track data and the data grid map to determine whether the object is stationary (paragraph 21; object is overlayed with near past buffered lidar data to determine whether an object is static or dynamic).
5) Regarding claim 4, Wyffels teaches the object tracking apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the object tracking apparatus: based on the analyzed grid information being associated with a value greater than a threshold value, determine that the object is stationary (paragraphs 20 and 21; figure 4; probabilities generated for objects have the thresholds shown in figure 4).
6) Claims 11-14 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 1-4 above, respectively.
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.
7) Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0048530 by Wyffels as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2025/0200879 by Jeong et al.
8) Regarding claim 8, Wyffels teaches the object tracking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the object tracking apparatus to: analyze a shape of the object by vertex grids of the object in a lateral direction and calculating grids, of the object, ranging from a minimum lateral grid to a maximum lateral grid (figure 3; paragraph 41; objects are identified by points as shown and are tracked through multiple frames as disclosed in paragraph 21, the oldest frame of lidar points can be considered a “minimum lateral grid” and the newest frame a “maximum lateral grid” [NOTE: “lateral” being an coordinates in the X direction as shown]).
Wyffels does not specifically teach aligning vertex grids (identifying objects in each frame is disclosed but not specifically aligning them).
Jeong discloses aligning vertex grids (paragraph 141; 2D grids of identified objects [figure 5, item S330] can be matched to a point cloud of a scene).
Wyffels and Jeong are combinable because they are both from the lidar object classification field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Wyffels with Jeong to add matching objects in a point cloud. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve accuracy (paragraph 161). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Wyffels with Jeong to obtain the invention of claim 8.
9) Regarding claim 9, Jeong (as combined with Wyffels in the rejection of claim 8 above) teaches the object tracking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the object tracking apparatus to: classify, based on vertices of a shape of the object, the shape of the object into a first type, a second type, a third type, or a fourth type (paragraph 121; objects can be classified into any of the example objects listed based on the shape).
10) Regarding claim 10 Jeong (as combined with Wyffels in the rejection of claim 8 above) teaches the object tracking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the object tracking apparatus to: classify, based on vertices of a shape of the object, the shape of the object into a first type, a second type, a third type, or a fourth type; and divide each of the first type, the second type, the third type, and the fourth type into at least one area (paragraph 121; objects are classified by shape into the “area” of the XY plane of the particular 2D NDT grid maps [figure 5, item S330]).
11) Claims 18-20 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 8-10 above, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683