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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11 line 5, the phrase “point” should be “points”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 and 16-17 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 13 and 16-17, the step ordering (i.e. h), i), etc.) is not sequential to the claim to which it depends, creating uncertainty as to proper claim dependence.
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.
Claims 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0211119), hereinafter Liu in view of Day et al. (WO2018/127789), hereinafter Day and Kappauf et al. (US 2018/0120857), hereinafter Kappauf.
In re. claim 11, Liu teaches a method for recognizing a traffic sign using a LiDAR system (106d) (fig. 1) configured to sense a light signal detected in the LiDAR system (para [0011]), wherein the light signal includes a plurality of light signal points (LiDAR point cloud (302)) (para [0027]), the method comprising the following steps :a) ascertaining a degree of reflection of each light signal data points (reflectivity values) (para [0030]); b) comparing the ascertained degrees of reflection to a predefined reflectivity limit value (reflectivity threshold) (para [0030]); c) for each light signal data point, based on the predefined reflectivity limit value being exceeded, marking the light signal data point as belonging to a retroreflector (points above threshold) (para [0030]).
Liu fails to disclose ascertaining a degree of reflection of each light signal data points from the intensity level of light signal data point; ascertaining a size of the retroreflector from the marked light signal data points; and e) recognizing the retroreflector as a traffic sign as a function of the ascertained size of the retroreflector.
Day teaches ascertaining a degree of reflection of each light signal data points from the intensity level of light signal data point (the intensity of the reflected pulses may be normalized based on determined distances in order to determine reflectivity values for object identification) (para [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Day to ascertain a degree of reflection of each light signal data points from the intensity level of light signal data point, for the purpose of utilizing the invention with point clouds containing only intensity values) (Day, para [0335]).
Kappauf teaches ascertaining a size of the retroreflector from the marked light signal data points (predetermined size range) (para [0034]); and recognizing the retroreflector as a traffic sign as a function of the ascertained size of the retroreflector (size limit for road signs) (para [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liu as modified by Day to incorporate the teachings of Kappauf to utilize size recognition, for the purpose of further filtering out unnecessary data in the cluster points.
In re. claim 12, Liu as modified by Day and Kappauf (see Kappauf) teach the method according to claim 11, wherein step e) comprises the following substeps:f) comparing the ascertained size of the retroreflector to a predefined retroreflector size limit value; and g) based on the predefined retroreflector size limit value being exceeded, recognizing the retroreflector as a traffic sign (upper size limit for road signs) (para [0034]).
In re. claim 13, Liu as modified by Day and Kappauf (see Kappauf) teach the method according to claim 11, further comprising:h) classifying the traffic sign by analyzing background light information of pixels of the traffic sign (classified as low-intensity returns) (para [0029]).
In re. claim 14, Liu as modified by Day and Kappauf (see Kappauf) teach the method according to claim 13, wherein classifying the traffic sign takes place using a neural network (filtered out using machine vision techniques) (para [0029]).
In re. claim 16, Liu as modified by Day and Kappauf (see Kappauf) teach the method according to claim 11, further comprising:i) transmitting position data of the recognized traffic sign to an electrical control unit to enable data fusion with at least one further sensor (pilot vehicle based on road sign) (918) (fig. 9).
In re. claim 17, Liu as modified by Day and Kappauf (see Kappauf) teach the method according to claim 16, further comprising: j) merging the transmitted position data of the recognized traffic sign with further sensor data from a further sensor to increase accuracy of the traffic sign recognition (character recognition of computing device) (para [0064]).
In re. claim 18, Liu teaches a device configured to recognize a traffic sign, comprising: a LiDAR system (106d) (fig. 1) designed to sense a light signal detected in the LiDAR system (para [0011]), wherein the light signal includes a plurality of light signal points (LiDAR point cloud (302)) (para [0027]); and an electronic control unit (102) configured to: a) ascertain a degree of reflection of each light signal data points (reflectivity values) (para [0030]) b) compare the ascertained degrees of reflection to a predefined reflectivity limit value (reflectivity threshold) (para [0030]); c) for each light signal data point, based on the predefined reflectivity limit value being exceeded, mark the light signal data point as belonging to a retroreflector(points above threshold) (para [0030]).
Liu fails to disclose ascertaining a degree of reflection of each light signal data points from the intensity level of light signal data point; ascertaining a size of the retroreflector from the marked light signal data points; and e) recognizing the retroreflector as a traffic sign as a function of the ascertained size of the retroreflector.
Day teaches ascertaining a degree of reflection of each light signal data points from the intensity level of light signal data point (the intensity of the reflected pulses may be normalized based on determined distances in order to determine reflectivity values for object identification) (para [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Day to ascertain a degree of reflection of each light signal data points from the intensity level of light signal data point, for the purpose of utilizing the invention with point clouds containing only intensity values) (Day, para [0335]).
Kappauf teaches ascertaining a size of the retroreflector from the marked light signal data points (predetermined size range) (para [0034]); and recognizing the retroreflector as a traffic sign as a function of the ascertained size of the retroreflector (size limit for road signs) (para [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liu as modified by Day to incorporate the teachings of Kappauf to utilize size recognition, for the purpose of further filtering out unnecessary data in the cluster points.
In re. claim 19, Liu teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program (para [0038]) for recognizing a traffic sign using a LiDAR system (106d) (fig. 1 configured to sense a light signal detected in the LiDAR system (para [0011]), wherein the light signal includes a plurality of light signal points (LiDAR point cloud (302)) (para [0027]), the computer program, when executed by an electronic control unit (102) (fig. 1), causing the electronic control unit to perform the following steps: a) ascertaining a degree of reflection of each light signal data points (reflectivity values) (para [0030]); b) comparing the ascertained degrees of reflection to a predefined reflectivity limit value (reflectivity threshold) (para [0030]); c) for each light signal data point, based on the predefined reflectivity limit value being exceeded, marking the light signal data point as belonging to a retroreflector (points above threshold) (para [0030]).
Liu fails to disclose ascertaining a degree of reflection of each light signal data points from the intensity level of light signal data point; ascertaining a size of the retroreflector from the marked light signal data points; and e) recognizing the retroreflector as a traffic sign as a function of the ascertained size of the retroreflector.
Day teaches ascertaining a degree of reflection of each light signal data points from the intensity level of light signal data point (the intensity of the reflected pulses may be normalized based on determined distances in order to determine reflectivity values for object identification) (para [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Day to ascertain a degree of reflection of each light signal data points from the intensity level of light signal data point, for the purpose of utilizing the invention with point clouds containing only intensity values) (Day, para [0335]).
Kappauf teaches ascertaining a size of the retroreflector from the marked light signal data points (predetermined size range) (para [0034]); and recognizing the retroreflector as a traffic sign as a function of the ascertained size of the retroreflector (size limit for road signs) (para [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liu as modified by Day to incorporate the teachings of Kappauf to utilize size recognition, for the purpose of further filtering out unnecessary data in the cluster points.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as modified by Day and Kappauf as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yoshizawa et al. (WO 2019/116641), hereinafter Yoshizawa.
In re. claim 15, Liu as modified by Day and Kappauf fail to disclose a largest distance value is in each case selected for each pixel of the background light information.
Yoshizawa teaches a largest distance value is in each case selected for each pixel of the background light information (In the prior art, when such first light receiving pulse and second light receiving pulse are present, it is recognized that the light receiving pulse from the more distant side, that is, the light receiving pulse having the longer reciprocation time is the light receiving from the object) (para [0055]) (fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liu as modified by Day and Kappauf to incorporate the teachings of Yoshizawa to have a largest distance value in each case selected for each pixel of the background light information, for the purpose of removing noise due to weather conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647