DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/07/2023 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 5, 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2021/0312633) in view of Borkowski (US 2018/0121750 A1) and in further view of Heo (US 2016/0103208 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Noh discloses an object detection method and system comprising:
[claim 11: an interface configured to receive, from a lidar sensor of a vehicle, a point cloud associated with an object; and a processor communicatively or electrically connected to the interface, wherein the processor is configured to: (figure 8)]
based on detecting an object in a region of interest via a sensor of the vehicle, extracting, via a processor and from points in a point cloud associated with the object, contour points of the object; (Noh discloses a LiDAR sensor mounted on a vehicle for detecting objects surrounding the vehicle and a controller including a microprocessor for processing point-cloud data obtained from the LiDAR sensor, see paragraphs 56-57. Noh further discloses extracting contour points corresponding to a detected object from the LiDAR point-cloud data, see paragraphs 58 and 67-68).
a contour segment connecting a first contour point and a second contour point of the contour points (Noh discloses first and second contour points p6 and p7 forming a portion of the contour of the detected object, with p6 and p7 being connected as part of the object contour, see paragraphs 92-93. Thus, p6 corresponds to the claimed first contour point and p7 corresponds to the claimed second contour point. Noh further discloses evaluating at least one of the first contour point or the second contour point to determine whether the contour point is validly associated with the detected object. In particular, Noh evaluates contour point p6 and determines whether p6 should remain part of the detected-object contour or should be removed based on the disclosed contour-validity analysis, see paragraphs 91-96. Noh further discloses removing contour point p6 when p6 fails the disclosed validity determination, see paragraph 96.)
Noh fails to specifically disclose that the region of interest is within a predetermined distance from a vehicle; determining, via the processor, a horizontal region of a contour segment connecting a first contour point and a second contour point of the contour points; determining, via the processor and based on the determined horizontal region, whether a point density condition is satisfied; determining, based on the point density condition being satisfied, that at least one of the first contour point or the second contour point is unrelated to the object; and removing, from the point cloud, the at least one of the first contour point or the second contour point. Although Noh removes p6 from the contour representation, the cited disclosure does not expressly establish removal of p6 from the underlying LiDAR point cloud.
In related art, Borkowski discloses determining, via the processor, a horizontal region of a contour segment connecting a first contour point and a second contour point of the contour points. (Borkowski discloses spatially ordered detections in a horizontal plane and discloses a segment defined by first and second endpoints. Borkowski further discloses determining a rectangular region associated with the segment, wherein the rectangular region is parallel to and centered on the segment, and detections within the rectangular region are associated with the particular segment, see paragraphs 22, 50, and 66; Fig. 5.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Noh to determine Borkowski's segment centered horizontal region for the contour segment connecting Noh's contour points p6 and p7. Such a modification would allow nearby LiDAR detections to be spatially associated with the particular contour segment being evaluated, thereby providing additional information for evaluating the reliability of the segment and its contour points.
Furthermore, Heo discloses the region of interest being within a predetermined distance from a vehicle (Heo discloses performing LiDAR noise-point evaluation within a predetermined distance from the LiDAR sensor, including evaluating LiDAR measurement points within approximately 10 meters of the LiDAR sensor, see paragraphs 29 and 33.)
determining, via the processor and based on the determined horizontal region, whether a point density condition is satisfied (Heo determines the number of neighboring LiDAR points to the left and right and adjacent to the top and bottom and determines whether a noise condition is satisfied based on the number of neighboring measurement points, including determining whether the number of neighboring points is one or less, see paragraph 34. Thus, Heo teaches determining whether a LiDAR point has sufficient neighboring point density or spatial support.)
determining, based on the point density condition being satisfied, that at least one of the first contour point or the second contour point is unrelated to the object (Heo identifies the reference point and associated neighboring points as rain or snow noise when the disclosed filtering conditions are satisfied, see paragraph 35. A LiDAR point identified as rain or snow noise is a noise return rather than a point belonging to the detected object.)
removing, from the point cloud, the at least one of the first contour point or the second contour point (Heo eliminates LiDAR measurement points identified as noise from the measured LiDAR data, see paragraphs 32 and 37.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Noh and Borkowski by applying Heo's neighboring point density and noise filtering to the LiDAR detections within Borkowski's segment centered region. Such a modification would allow Noh's contour points to be evaluated for insufficient neighboring point support and identified and removed as noise, thereby reducing false detections and improving the reliability of the detected-object contour.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Noh, as modified by Borkowski and Heo, discloses the claimed invention wherein the first contour point is a currently searched point, and wherein the second contour point is a point to be searched after the first contour point. (paragraphs 94-98)
Claims 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh, Borkowski, Heo and in further view of Noh (US 2022/0058421 A1; hereinafter Noh ‘421).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Noh, as modified by Borkowski and Heo, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein determining, via the processor and based on the contour segment, a first contour angle formed by a point preceding the first contour point, the first contour point, and the second contour point; and determining, via the processor and based on the contour segment, a second contour angle formed by the first contour point, the second contour point, and a point adjacent to the second contour point.
In related art, Noh ‘421 discloses determining, via the processor and based on the contour segment, a first contour angle formed by a point preceding the first contour point, the first contour point, and the second contour point; and determining, via the processor and based on the contour segment, a second contour angle formed by the first contour point, the second contour point, and a point adjacent to the second contour point. (Noh ‘421 discloses calculating angles throughout consecutive contour segments. Applying that calculation at successive vertices yields the claimed first, second adj adjacent three point angles, see paragraphs 41-42 and 81-82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Noh ‘421 into the teachings of Noh, Borkowski and Heo to effective extract an outline of a static object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-10, 13-14 and 16-20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights