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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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) 1, 5, 9-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0141092 A1 (“Chen”) in view of US 2018/0341007 A1 (“Fetterman”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method of sensing an installation abnormality of a sensing device, the method comprising:
obtaining point clouds over time with respect to a three-dimensional space (e.g. see point clouds shown in Figs. 9-10, paragraphs [0120]-[0123]) by using a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor (e.g. see LiDAR on a vehicle, e.g. see 12 in Figs. 1-2; also see 320 in Fig. 3A);
determining a static object area of the three-dimensional space based on the obtained point clouds over time with respect to the three-dimensional space (e.g. see distinguishing static and dynamic targets, paragraphs [0113]-[0115], and e.g. see static targets represented by points that lie close to or on the curved lines in Fig. 10 such as grouping of points within the circle 1032 on curved line 1004 represent the buildings and the trees on the right side of the highway, paragraphs [0120]-[0123]).
Although Chen discloses the installation of a sensing device (e.g. see installation position and orientation of the coherent LiDAR sensor of the coherent Doppler LiDAR system with respect to the vehicle is determined, paragraphs [0117]-[0118]) and discloses the determined static object area (e.g. see distinguishing static and dynamic targets, paragraphs [0113]-[0115], and e.g. see static targets represented by points that lie close to or on the curved lines in Fig. 10 such as grouping of points within the circle 1032 on curved line 1004 represent the buildings and the trees on the right side of the highway, paragraphs [0120]-[0123]), it is noted Chen differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose determining the installation abnormality of a sensing device based on static point clouds having a certain time difference among static point clouds over time corresponding to the determined static object area. Fetterman however, teaches determining the installation abnormality of a sensing device based on static point clouds having a certain time difference among static point clouds over time corresponding to the determined static object area (e.g. see determining and correcting for sensor, e.g. LiDAR (see paragraph [0001]), misalignment by taking large quantity of detections, over a time interval, of objects adjacent to the travel path of the vehicle; when plotted, these detections of a single clutter object, e.g. tree, will appear as patterns, for example, lines that can be used to determine the orientation, i.e., misalignment angle, of the sensor, paragraph [0035]; for example, Fig. 4C shows determination of sensor misalignment because detected stationary object, i.e. a tree, over time do not form a straight line in the x-y plane parallel to the direction of motion 73 of vehicle 50 in Fig. 4A, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Chen and Fetterman before him/her, to modify the Scene Perception Using Coherent Doppler Lidar of Chen with the teachings of Fetterman in order to determine and correct misalignment of sensor to increase measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, although Chen discloses determining the static object area of the three-dimensional space (e.g. see distinguishing static and dynamic targets, paragraphs [0113]-[0115], and e.g. see static targets represented by points that lie close to or on the curved lines in Fig. 10 such as grouping of points within the circle 1032 on curved line 1004 represent the buildings and the trees on the right side of the highway, paragraphs [0120]-[0123]), it is noted Chen differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein determining the static object area of the three-dimensional space comprises determining the static object area of the three-dimensional space based on a point cloud of an assigned area among the obtained point clouds over time with respect to the three-dimensional space. Fetterman however, teaches wherein determining the static object area of the three-dimensional space comprises determining the static object area of the three-dimensional space based on a point cloud of an assigned area among the obtained point clouds over time with respect to the three-dimensional space (e.g. area where objects adjacent to the travel path of the vehicle is, paragraph [0035]; for example, as shown in Fig. 4A, the area is where a tree is, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claims 9-10, 14, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-17 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160209211 A1, Song et al., METHOD FOR DETERMINING MISALIGNMENT OF AN OBJECT SENSOR
US 20210095970 A1, Lu et al., MAPPING AND DETERMINING SCENARIOS FOR GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
US 20190293756 A1, Blaes et al., SENSOR CALIBRATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights