DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 9 is canceled.
Claims 1-6, 12-13, 16, 18 are amended.
Claims 1-8, 10-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application filed in CN 202110691334.8 on 06/22/2021 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “grid division unit”, “plane equation determination unit”, “ground equation determination unit”, and “ground point cloud division unit” in Claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12-13 recite determining “ground point cloud segmentation”.
The limitation of determining “whether the point cloud in each grid is a ground point cloud according to the ground equation of each grid”, as drafted, is an abstract idea grouping that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mathematical concept defined by mathematical equations. That is, A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite calculations and variables to arrive at a mathematical concept – applied to autonomous vehicles for sensing the surrounding environment. The use of radar in an autonomous vehicle is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic apparatus for performing the calculations) such that it amounts no more than mere calculations to apply the exception using a generic radar system. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a radar in an autonomous vehicle to perform the mathematical calculations amounts to no more than mere equations without direct application to apply the exception using a radar system. Mere equations without direct application to apply an exception using a generic radar system cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-11, 14-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not remedy the deficiencies noted in claims 1 and 12.
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 1-8, 10-20 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 17, 19-20 recite “a plane equation”. It is unclear how a plane equation is derived in the claimed invention. No support for the derivation of a plane equation from the point cloud data can be found in the instant specification. The examiner has interpreted this limiting term as “a plane that corresponds to points in a point cloud”.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-13, 17-20 recite “a ground equation”. It is unclear how a ground equation is derived in the claimed invention. No support for the derivation of a ground equation from the point cloud data can be found in the instant specification. The examiner has interpreted this limiting term as “a plane that corresponds to points in a point cloud related to the ground”.
Claims 2, 11, 14-16 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on the independent claims.
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 1-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douillard (US 20180364717) in view of Yu (WO 2020154968).
Regarding Claim 1, Douillard teaches the following limitations:
A ground point cloud segmentation method, applied to autonomous vehicles for sensing the surrounding environment, comprising: (Douillard – [Abstract] Systems, methods, and apparatuses described herein are directed to performing segmentation on voxels representing three-dimensional data to identify static and dynamic objects. LIDAR data may be captured by a perception system for an autonomous vehicle and represented in a voxel space… Ground plane data can be set aside from the voxel space, and the remaining voxels can be clustered to determine objects. [0027] In some instances, the operation 106 can include mapping individual points of the point cloud to individual voxels.)
dividing a region of interest within a preset range around the autonomous vehicle into a plurality of grids, and putting point clouds in the region of interest into the corresponding grids; (Douillard – [0027], [0014] Data captured by the LIDAR system may be represented in a voxel space, which may include representing the data in a grid of volume elements (“voxels”) in three-dimensional space.)
determining that a plane equation corresponding to the point cloud in each grid is wiT[x, y, z]T + bi = 0, wherein: wi is a normalized normal vector of the plane equation of a grid ci, bi represents an offset term of the plane equation of the grid ci, and [x, y, z]T denotes a position of a point in the grid ci; (Douillard – [0024] At operation 106, the process can include associating the LIDAR dataset with a voxel space. Example 108 illustrates a voxel space including five voxels in each dimension (e.g., x, y, z), [0047] for a principal component analysis, the smallest eigenvector may correspond to the normal vector of the plane, while an eigenvalue associated with the eigenvector may correspond to a spread or level of diffusion of the data associated with the particular voxel in the direction of the smallest eigenvector. [0048] The clustering module 216 may operate in conjunction with the ground determination module 214 to grow a ground region, starting with a surface that is closest to the origin of the LIDAR data, or starting with a surface that is under an autonomous vehicle. That is, voxels proximate to an autonomous vehicle may be used as a seed voxel for the clustering module 216. The clustering module 216 may determine that locally flat voxels that are adjacent belong to a same cluster, and may grow a region to encompass a ground plane. Further, the clustering module 216 may operate in conjunction with the object determination module 220, discussed below, to determine that voxels are associated with a particular object. The clustering module 216 may utilize a variety of clustering algorithms, including but not limited to: region growing; hierarchical clustering; partitional clustering; square error clustering; graph theoretic clustering; mixture-resolving clustering; mean-seeking clustering; k-means clustering; N-cut clustering; proximity clustering; etc.) Douillard does not explicitly teach “a plane equation”.) (See 112 (b) section.)
taking, as a central grid, a grid where a radar which performs scanning to form the point clouds is located, and (Douillard – [0047], [0048])
determining that a ground equation of the central grid is n0 [x, y, z]T + g0 = 0. wherein: the radar is installed horizontally, and its xoy plane is parallel to ground, n0 [0, 0, 1], g0 is a height of the radar from the ground, and [x, y, z]T denotes a position of a point in the central grid, the ground equation is an equation for describing a ground point in the grid; (Douillard – [0047], [0048], [0030] As a non-limiting example, determining a ground plane in the operation 112 may include determining an inner product between a vector in the height dimension (e.g., a reference direction) of an apparatus carrying such a LIDAR system, [0061] In some instances, the data associated with the voxel may include LIDAR data, camera data, RADAR data, SONAR data, global map data, and any combination thereof Douillard does not explicitly teach “a ground equation”.) (See 112 (b) section)
marking the central grid as a ground grid, and according to the plane equation corresponding to the point cloud in each grid and the ground equation of the central grid, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid and calculating a ground equation of each grid in the region of interest, (Douillard – [0048], [0047] The ground determination module 214 may determine that a voxel is a locally flat voxel if the normal vector associated with the voxel is within a threshold amount of the reference orientation, as described above.)
comprising: performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid, and for diffused adjacent grids, according to similarity between the ground equation of a grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids and the plane equation of a grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids, (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
determining whether the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is a ground grid; and (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
determining the ground equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is equal to the plane equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids or the ground equation of the grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids, according to whether the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is the ground grid; and (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
determining a point in a point cloud in each grid to be a ground point or a non-ground point according to a distance from the point to the ground equation of the grid. (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
Douillard does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Yu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
plane equation… ground equation (Yu – [Pg. 13, Para. 5] The projection equation is then: [Image Omitted] where x k is any point from the set of point cloud i, t i is a translation, and R i is a rotation transformation. [Pg. 21, Para. 4] In some embodiments, a fitting algorithm such as RANSAC is applied to the point clouds to identify planar objects or planes (e.g., the road surface) based on the identified ground points. RANSAC is useful to remove outlier points from consideration. The fitting algorithm such as RANSAC can be applied iteratively, and after each fitting, outlier points are discarded and the remaining points are again applied the fitting algorithm to obtain one or more planes as potential ground planes. The points representing a single plane with a normal direction parallel to a Z axis (vertical axis to the LIDAR sensors unit capturing the point clouds) having the largest area can then be taken as the road surface points.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the lidar data of Douillard with the fitting algorithm of Yu in order to identify planar objects (Yu – [Pg. 21, Para. 4]).
Regarding Claim 2, Douillard further teaches:
wherein the performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid by using a breadth-first grid traversal policy. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
Regarding Claim 3, Douillard further teaches:
wherein the determining whether the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is a ground grid comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
if the ground equation of the grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids is similar to the plane equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
determining that the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is the ground grid; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
wherein if a deviation between a normal vector of the ground equation and a normal vector of the plane equation is within a tolerance range, and a deviation between an offset term of the ground equation and an offset term of the plane equation is within the tolerance range, the ground equation is considered similar to the plane equation. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
Regarding Claim 4, Douillard further teaches:
wherein the determining the ground equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
if the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is the ground grid, letting the ground equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids be equal to the plane equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
otherwise, letting the ground equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids be equal to the ground equation of the grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
Regarding Claim 5, Douillard further teaches:
wherein determining a point in a point cloud in each grid to be a ground point or a non-ground point according to a distance from the point to the ground equation of the grid comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
if a distance from a point in a point cloud in a grid to the ground equation of the grid is smaller than a maximum distance from a ground point cloud to a ground equation, considering the point to be a ground point, otherwise, considering the point to be a non-ground point. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
Regarding Claim 6, Douillard further teaches:
wherein the performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid and calculating a ground equation of each grid in the region of interest comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
maintaining a first-in first-out queue, each grid in the region of interest in the queue maintaining a state quantity, the state quantity comprising: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
a first state indicating that the grid has been visited and is identified as a ground grid, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
a second state indicating that the grid has not been visited, and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
a third state indicating that the grid has been visited and is not identified as a ground grid; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
adding the center grid co to the queue, marking the state quantity of the center grid co as the first state; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
taking out a grid ci in a head of the queue, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
wherein an initial value of the grid ci is the central grid co; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
selecting any grid cj adjacent to the grid ci; if the state quantity of the grid cj is the second state, adding the grid cj to a tail of the queue; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
if the state quantity of the grid cj is not the first state, determining similarity between the ground equation of the grid ci and the plane equation of the grid cj; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
if the ground equation of the grid ci is similar to the plane equation of the grid cj, marking the grid cj as the ground grid, setting the state quantity of the grid cj as the first state, and letting the ground equation of the grid cj be equal to the plane equation of the grid cj; and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
if the ground equation of the grid ci is dissimilar to the plane equation of the grid cj, setting the state quantity of the grid cj as the third state, and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
letting the ground equation of the grid cj be equal to the ground equation of the grid ci. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
Regarding Claim 7, Douillard further teaches:
wherein the determining similarity between the ground equation of the grid ci and the plane equation of the grid cj comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
if the following two conditions are satisfied simultaneously, considering the ground equation of the grid ci to be similar to the plane equation of the grid cj, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
otherwise, considering the ground equation of the grid ci to be dissimilar to the plane equation of the grid cj, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
wjTni > 1-α, |bj-gi| < β (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
wherein: wj denotes a normal vector of the plane equation of the grid cj, ni denotes a normal vector of the ground equation of the grid ci, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
α denotes an allowable deviation tolerance value of the normal vector of the plane equation from the normal vector of the ground equation, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
bj denotes an offset term of the plane equation of the grid cj, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
gi denotes an offset term of the ground equation of the grid ci, and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
β denotes an allowable deviation tolerance value of the offset term of the plane equation from the offset term of the ground equation. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
Regarding Claim 8, Douillard further teaches:
wherein the determining whether the point cloud in each grid is a ground point cloud according to the ground equation of each grid comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
for the grid ci, if a point [x, y, z]T in the point cloud within the grid ci satisfies |niT[x, y, z]T + gi|< γ, considering the point to be a ground point, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
otherwise, considering the point to be a non-ground point, wherein: ni denotes a normal vector of the ground equation of the grid ci, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
gi denotes an offset term of the ground equation of the grid ci, and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
γ denotes a maximum distance from a ground point cloud to a ground equation. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
Regarding Claim 10, Douillard further teaches:
wherein the plane equation corresponding to the point cloud in each grid is fitted by using a random sample consensus algorithm or a singular value decomposition algorithm. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048] Douillard does not explicitly teach “a random sample consensus algorithm”.) (See 112 (b) section.)
Douillard does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Yu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
random sample consensus algorithm (Yu – [Pg. 21, Para. 4])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the lidar data of Douillard with the RANSAC algorithm of Yu in order to identify planar objects (Yu – [Pg. 21, Para. 4]).
Regarding Claim 11, Douillard further teaches:
wherein the region of interest is divided into a plurality of grids according to a top view angle, and (Douillard – [0014], [0024])
the point clouds in the region of interest are put into the corresponding grids according to position coordinates of the point clouds. (Douillard – [0014], [0024])
Regarding Claim 12, Douillard teaches the following limitations:
A ground point cloud segmentation apparatus, applied to autonomous vehicles for sensing the surrounding environment, comprising: (Douillard – [Abstract], [0027])
A non-transitory memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, (Douillard – [0113])
the processor configured to perform a ground point cloud segmentation method based on instructions stored in the memory, (Douillard – [Abstract], [0027], [0113])
wherein the ground point cloud segmentation method comprises: (Douillard – [Abstract], [0027])
dividing a region of interest within a preset range around the autonomous vehicle into a plurality of grids, and putting point clouds in the region of interest into the corresponding grids; (Douillard – [0014], [0027])
determining that a plane equation corresponding to the point cloud in each grid is wiT[x, y, z]T + bi = 0, wherein: wi is a normalized normal vector of the plane equation of a grid ci, bi represents an offset term of the plane equation of the grid ci, and [x, y, z]T denotes a position of a point in the grid ci; (Douillard – [0024], [0047], [0048] Douillard does not explicitly teach “a plane equation”) (See 112 (b) section.)
taking, as a central grid, a grid where a radar which performs scanning to form the point clouds is located, and (Douillard – [0047], [0048])
determining that a ground equation of the central grid is n0 [x, y, z]T + g0 = 0. wherein: the radar is installed horizontally, and its xoy plane is parallel to ground, n0 [0, 0, 1], g0 is a height of the radar from the ground, and [x, y, z]T denotes a position of a point in the central grid, the ground equation is an equation for describing a ground point in the grid; (Douillard – [0030], [0047], [0048] Douillard does not explicitly teach “a ground equation”.) (See 112 (b) section.)
marking the central grid as a ground grid, and according to the plane equation corresponding to the point cloud in each grid and the ground equation of the central grid, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid and calculating a ground equation of each grid in the region of interest (Douillard – [0047], [0048])
comprising: performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid, and for diffused adjacent grids, according to similarity between the ground equation of a grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids and the plane equation of a grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids, (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
determining whether the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is a ground grid; and (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
determining the ground equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is equal to the plane equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids or the ground equation of the grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids, according to whether the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is the ground grid; and (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
determining a point in a point cloud in each grid to be a ground point or a non-ground according to a distance from the point to the ground equation of the grid. (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
Douillard does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Yu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
plane equation… ground equation (Yu – [Pg. 13, Para. 5], [Pg. 21, Para. 4])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the lidar data of Douillard with the fitting algorithm of Yu in order to identify planar objects (Yu – [Pg. 21, Para. 4]).
Regarding Claim 13, Douillard teaches the following limitations:
A ground point cloud segmentation apparatus, applied to autonomous vehicles for sensing the surrounding environment, comprising: (Douillard – [Abstract], [0027])
a grid division unit configured to divide a region of interest within a preset range around the autonomous vehicle into a plurality of grids, and put point clouds in the region of interest into the corresponding grids; (Douillard – [0014], [0027])
a plane equation determination unit configured to determine that a plane equation corresponding to the point cloud in each grid is wiT[x, y, z]T + bi = 0, wherein: wi is a normalized normal vector of the plane equation of a grid ci, bi represents an offset term of the plane equation of the grid ci, and [x, y, z]T denotes a position of a point in the grid ci; (Douillard – [0024], [0047], [0048] Douillard does not explicitly teach “a plane equation”.) (See 112 (b) section.)
a ground equation determination unit configured to take, as a central grid, a grid where a radar which performs scanning to form the point clouds is located, and (Douillard – [0047], [0048] Douillard does not explicitly teach “a ground equation”.) (See 112 (b) section.)
determine that a ground equation of the central grid is n0 [x, y, z]T + g0 = 0. wherein: the radar is installed horizontally, and its xoy plane is parallel to ground, n0 [0, 0, 1], g0 is a height of the radar from the ground, and [x, y, z]T denotes a position of a point in the central grid, the ground equation is an equation for describing a ground point in the grid; (Douillard – [0030], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
mark the central grid as a ground grid, and according to the plane equation corresponding to the point cloud in each grid and the ground equation of the central grid, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
by using a breadth-first grid traversal policy, perform gradual outward diffusion from the central grid and calculate a ground equation of each grid in the region of interest, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
comprising: performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid, and for diffused adjacent grids, according to similarity between the ground equation of a grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids and the plane equation of a grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids, (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
determining whether the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is a ground grid; and (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
determining the ground equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is equal to the plane equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids or the ground equation of the grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids, according to whether the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is the ground grid; and (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
a ground point cloud division unit configured to determine a point in a point cloud in each grid to be a ground point or a non-ground point according to a distance from the point to the ground equation of the grid. (Douillard – [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
a ground point cloud division unit configured to determine whether the point cloud in each grid is a ground point cloud according to the ground equation of each grid. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
Douillard does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Yu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
plane equation… ground equation (Yu – [Pg. 13, Para. 5], [Pg. 21, Para. 4])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the lidar data of Douillard with the fitting algorithm of Yu in order to identify planar objects (Yu – [Pg. 21, Para. 4]).
Regarding Claim 14, Douillard further teaches:
An autonomous vehicle, comprising: a radar configured to perform scanning to form a point cloud, and the ground point cloud segmentation apparatus according to claim 12. (Douillard – [Abstract], [0027])
Regarding Claim 15, Douillard further teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the ground point cloud segmentation method according to claim 1. (Douillard – [Abstract], [0113])
Regarding Claim 16, Douillard further teaches:
The ground point cloud segmentation apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid by using a breadth-first grid traversal policy. (Douillard – [0047], [0048])
Regarding Claim 17, Douillard further teaches:
wherein: the determining whether the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is a ground grid comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
if the ground equation of the grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids is similar to the plane equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
determining that the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is the ground grid; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
wherein if a deviation between a normal vector of the ground equation and a normal vector of the plane equation is within a tolerance range, and a deviation between an offset term of the ground equation and an offset term of the plane equation is within the tolerance range, the ground equation is considered similar to the plane equation; or (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
the determining the ground equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
if the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids is the ground grid, letting the ground equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids be equal to the plane equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
otherwise, letting the ground equation of the grid farther from the central grid in the adjacent grids be equal to the ground equation of the grid closer to the central grid in the adjacent grids. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
Regarding Claim 18, Douillard further teaches:
wherein determining a point in a point cloud in each grid to be a ground point or a non-ground according to a distance from the point to the ground equation of the grid comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
if a distance from a point in a point cloud in a grid to the ground equation of the grid is smaller than a maximum distance from a ground point cloud to a ground equation, considering the point to be a ground point, otherwise, considering the point to be a non-ground point. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
Regarding Claim 19, Douillard further teaches:
wherein the performing gradual outward diffusion from the central grid and calculating a ground equation of each grid in the region of interest comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
maintaining a first-in first-out queue, each grid in the region of interest in the queue maintaining a state quantity, the state quantity comprising: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
a first state indicating that the grid has been visited and is identified as a ground grid, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
a second state indicating that the grid has not been visited, and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
a third state indicating that the grid has been visited and is not identified as a ground grid; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
adding the center grid c0 to the queue, marking the state quantity of the center grid c0 as the first state; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
taking out a grid ci in a head of the queue, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
wherein an initial value of the grid ci is the central grid c0; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
selecting any grid cj adjacent to the grid ci; if the state quantity of the grid cj is the second state, adding the grid cj to a tail of the queue; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
if the state quantity of the grid cj is not the first state, determining similarity between the ground equation of the grid ci and the plane equation of the grid cj; (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
if the ground equation of the grid ci is similar to the plane equation of the grid cj, marking the grid cj as the ground grid, setting the state quantity of the grid cj as the first state, and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
letting the ground equation of the grid cj be equal to the plane equation of the grid cj; and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
if the ground equation of the grid ci is dissimilar to the plane equation of the grid cj, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
setting the state quantity of the grid cj as the third state, and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
letting the ground equation of the grid cj be equal to the ground equation of the grid ci. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
Regarding Claim 20, Douillard further teaches:
wherein: the determining similarity between the ground equation of the grid ci and the plane equation of the grid cj comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
if the following two conditions are satisfied simultaneously, considering the ground equation of the grid ci to be similar to the plane equation of the grid cj, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
otherwise, considering the ground equation of the grid ci to be dissimilar to the plane equation of the grid cj, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
wjTni > 1-a, |bj-gi| < β (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
wherein: wj denotes a normal vector of the plane equation of the grid cj, ni denotes a normal vector of the ground equation of the grid ci, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
α denotes an allowable deviation tolerance value of the normal vector of the plane equation from the normal vector of the ground equation, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
bj denotes an offset term of the plane equation of the grid cj, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
gi denotes an offset term of the ground equation of the grid ci, and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
β denotes an allowable deviation tolerance value of the offset term of the plane equation from the offset term of the ground equation; or (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
the determining whether the point cloud in each grid is a ground point cloud according to the ground equation of each grid comprises: (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048]) (See 112 (b) section.)
for the grid ci, if a point [x, y, z]T in the point cloud within the grid ci satisfies niT[x, y, z]T + gi|< γ, considering the point to be a ground point, (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
otherwise, considering the point to be a non-ground point, wherein: ni denotes a normal vector of the ground equation of the grid ci, gi denotes an offset term of the ground equation of the grid ci, and (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
γ denotes a maximum distance from a ground point cloud to a ground equation. (Douillard – [Fig. 1], [0047], [0048])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 12-14, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims provide a solution to the problem of low ground segmentation accuracy of a radar point clouds in autonomous vehicles. The examiner disagrees, no radar accuracy or precision improvement can be directly correlated to a described in the claims. While the term “ground point” references the ground, it is determined by a “ground equation” and a “plane equation”. These terms only make determinations of “ground point” or “non-ground point” mathematically as applied to a generic radar system.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 14, in regards to the rejection of Claims 12, 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 concerning “transient signals” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 12, 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 concerning “transient signals” has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 14-15, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments clarify the derivation of the “plane equation”. The examiner disagrees, the “plane equation” in regards to a “point cloud” lacks clarity. The definition given in the claims and specification use terms that refer to “grids” based “plane equations” that do not refer to a “point cloud”. Applicant argues that the amendments clarify the derivation of the “ground equation”. The examiner disagrees, the amendments define a “ground equation” of a central grid”. The examiner disagrees, the “ground equation” in regards to a “point cloud” lacks clarity. The definition given in the claims and specification refer to a “central grid” in which a “point cloud” is located. It is unclear how this central grid is determined and how [x,y,z]T can be used to describe “a ground point in the grid”.
Applicant’s arguments, see Paged 15-17, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments rely on a clear understanding of a “plane equation” and a “ground equation” and their relation with a “central grid” and “point cloud”. The diffusion process seems to not incorporate point cloud data but somehow arrives at a relationship between points in a point cloud and ground points. Further, no details are provided to support the determination of a point cloud (e.g. echoes from a radar transmission). The BRI when considering the lack of clarity supports the mapping of Douillard in view of Yu when arriving at a ground plane data determination.
Applicant’s arguments, see Paged 17-18, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on the independent claims. As noted above, the examiner maintains Douillard in view of Yu teaches the independent claims and therefore the dependent claims remain rejected.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648