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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 4/22/26, with respect to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 4/22/26, with respect to claims 5-7 and 15-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10 and 11, filed 4/22/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0190462 by Schwindt et al.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1) Claim(s) 1-4, 11-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2024/0190462 by Schwindt et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Schwindt teaches an object tracking apparatus comprising: a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor (paragraph 38; lidar can be utilized as a sensor); and one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (figure 2; processor and memory disclosed), cause the object tracking apparatus to: receive lidar data from the lidar sensor and track detected objects using the received lidar data (paragraph 55; objects are tracked over time); determine, based on a predetermined criterion and information about the detected objects, for each of the detected objects: a first score, based on moving object features of the corresponding object, indicating a likelihood that the corresponding object is moving, wherein the moving object features comprise a velocity (paragraphs 46 and 51; objects have a dynamic probability that can be based upon velocity), and a second score, based on static object features of the corresponding object, indicating a likelihood that the corresponding object is stationary (paragraph 50; static object probability is calculated); output, for each of the detected objects, a comparison result value of a comparison between the first score and the second score (paragraph 50; dynamic scored objects can be superimposed on the static occupancy grid [i.e. static scores are compared to overlayed dynamic scores in a particular location); and determine, based on the comparison result value, whether each of the detected objects is moving or stationary (paragraphs 51 and 52; based on the overlap, object status is determined).
3) Regarding claim 2, Schwindt 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 detected objects are is moving or stationary, and generate a data grid map using the generated at least one grid map (paragraphs 50-52; grid map of static objects is determined [i.e. item 42] that is overlayed with dynamic objects to create the “data grid map”).
4) Regarding claim 3, Schwindt 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 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 at least one object is stationary (paragraphs 50-52; tracked dynamic objects are overlayed on the static grid to determine whether objects are real stationary objects).
5) Regarding claim 4, Schwindt 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 at least one object is stationary (paragraph 52; thresholds are utilized).
6) Claims 11-14 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 1-4 above, respectively.
7) Claim 21 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above (lidar is a sensor).
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.
8) Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2024/0190462 by Schwindt et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2025/0200879 by Jeong et al.
9) Regarding claim 8, Schwindt 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 4; paragraphs 45, 49 and 55; defined object shapes are tracked over time from a “minimum grid” [i.e. furthest back in time] to a “maximum grid” [i.e. most recent]).
Schwindt 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).
Schwindt 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 Schwindt 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 Schwindt with Jeong to obtain the invention of claim 8.
10) Regarding claim 9, Jeong (as combined with Schwindt 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).
11) Regarding claim 10 Jeong (as combined with Schwindt 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]).
12) Claims 18-20 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 8-10 above, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 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
Prosecution Insights