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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they appear to contain drawings other than black and white line drawings and are listed as such in the record. It appears that the drawings have or are gray shading that will not print well. See MPEP 608.02.V for drawing requirements. The examiner recommends correcting the drawings to be black and white line drawings and, then, resubmitting all drawings to ensure each drawing is correctly labeled as a black and white line drawing in the record. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a road" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a mental process. Claim 1 recites obtaining, determining, and combining data, which can be performed with the human mind or with pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application or have additional elements that amount to significantly more because the additional elements of a memory and processor are merely generic computer components recited at a high level. Implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components does not result in a practical application or significantly more.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. The dependent claims provide additional details about the determining and combining steps, i.e., the abstract idea, but do not add any additional elements that provide a practical application or significantly more.
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) 1-6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Application Publication CN106591006 to Lin et al.
As per claim 1, Lin discloses an apparatus for determining height information of a road (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 1), the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 139); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 139) and configured to:
obtain a first road-height profile indicative of heights of a road at various depths (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 70, ‘receiving road grayscale data’);
obtain a depth representation of the road (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 70, ‘receiving the data returned by the line scanning 3D measurement sensor’);
determine a second road-height profile based on the depth representation of the road (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 70, ‘road surface elevation data’ and 85); and
combine the first road-height profile and the second road-height profile to generate a third road-height profile (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 76, ‘reconstruct the road surface three-dimensional point cloud data’).
As per claim 2, Lin discloses wherein the third road-height profile comprises a number of road heights corresponding to a respective number of depths (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 110).
As per claim 3, Lin discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, prior to determining the second road-height profile, filter the depth representation of the road to generate a filtered depth representation of the road, wherein the second road-height profile is determined based on the filtered depth representation of the road (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 81, wherein outside the lanes are filtered out, or 91, 107, and 108, wherein abnormal measurement points are filtered out).
As per claim 4, Lin discloses wherein, to filter the depth representation of the road, the at least one processor is configured to at least one of: identify depth values of the depth representation of the road that represent the road for inclusion in the filtered depth representation of the road; or identify depth values of the depth representation of the road that do not represent the road for exclusion from the filtered depth representation of the road (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 81).
As per claim 5, Lin discloses wherein, to filter the depth representation of the road, the at least one processor is configured to at least one of: identify noisy depth values for exclusion from the filtered depth representation of the road; or identify outlier depth values for exclusion from the filtered depth representation of the road (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 91, 107, and 108).
As per claim 6, Lin discloses wherein, to determine the second road-height profile, the at least one processor is configured to model the second road-height profile based on depth values of the depth representation of the road (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 70).
As per claim 9, Lin discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to update the second road-height profile by tracking the second road-height profile over time (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 70, 82 and 106-108; the road profile is continuously tracked and updated over time to reconstruct the road surface).
As per claim 10, Lin discloses wherein, to determine the second road-height profile, the at least one processor is configured to: filter the depth representation of the road to generate a filtered depth representation of the road; model the second road-height profile based on depth values of the filtered depth representation of the road; and update the second road-height profile by tracking the second road-height profile over time (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 70, 82, 91, 107, and 108).
As per claim 15, Lin discloses wherein the depth representation of the road is based on at least one of: a radio detection and ranging (RADAR)-based representation the road; a light detection and ranging (LIDAR)-based representation the road; a time of flight (ToF) depth-detection-based representation the road; a stereoscopic depth-estimation-based representation the road; a monocular vision depth-estimation-based representation the road; or a geometric depth-estimation-based representation the road (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 70).
As per claim 16, Lin discloses wherein, to obtain the depth representation of the road, the at least one processor is configured to triangulate three-dimensional positions of points from matched points of sequential image frames, wherein a motion of a camera used to capture the sequential image frames between capturing the sequential image frames is used as a baseline for the triangulating (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 106).
As per claim 18, Lin discloses wherein, to obtain the first road-height profile the at least one processor is configured to:
obtain lane boundaries based on an image of the road (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 71);
determine a depth corresponding to a point in the image based on an assumed distance between lane boundaries at the point (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 53 and 78-80); and
determine a road height corresponding to the point based on the point in the image and the depth (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 81);
wherein the first road-height profile comprises a number of road heights corresponding to a respective number of depths (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 92 and 110).
As per claim 20, Lin discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to update the first road-height profile by tracking the first road-height profile over time (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 70 and 92).
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) 8, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0367781 to Takemae et al.
As per claims 8, 17, and 19, Lin discloses determining the road profiles based on the line lanes (Lin; At least paragraph(s) 53, 78, and 81), but does not explicitly disclose:
(16) wherein the second road-height profile is based on a clothoid model and is estimated using a least-squares-estimation technique.
(17) wherein the first road-height profile is based on a parallel-lane assumption.
(18) wherein the first road-height profile is based on a clothoid model and is estimated using a least-squares-estimation technique.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Takemae (Takemae; At least paragraph(s) 51). Aoyagi teaches determining the lane boundaries based on a straight, parallel line model or a least-squares clothoid model. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Takemae into the invention of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Using one method of determining lane line locations for another would be within the skill of and obvious to one in the art. Using a model instead of a fixed distance could provide more accurate results, especially during curves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665