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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 10 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.
The limitation “ … wherein the measurement data is sensor data … or data generated on a basis of the sensor data” is indefinite as it is unclear what is the meaning of the sensor data that is generated by the sensor data.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner did not give a patentable weight to this option.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A data processing device comprising: a storage device storing measurement data, including position information and velocity information about a plurality of measurement points in a space; and a processing circuit, wherein the processing circuit acquires the measurement data from the storage device, recognizes measurement points on a stationary object from among the plurality of measurement points on a basis of the velocity information, and generates point cloud data, including the position information about the measurement points on a stationary object, on a basis of a result of the recognition.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “recognizes measurement points on a stationary object from among the plurality of measurement points on a basis of the velocity information, and generates point cloud data, including the position information about the measurement points on a stationary object, on a basis of a result of the recognition” are treated as belonging to combination of mathematical and mental process groupings. The mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a step that “recognizes measurement points on a stationary object from among the plurality of measurement points on a basis of the velocity information” in the context of this claim, encompasses a user manually evaluating calculated velocity information and position information (instant Specification, as published [0102]) and developing a judgement about the measurement point based on matching with a pre-created map.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A data processing device comprising: a storage device storing measurement data, including position information and velocity information about a plurality of measurement points in a space; and a processing circuit, wherein the processing circuit acquires the measurement data from the storage device;
In Claim 19: A data processing method to be executed by a computer, … acquiring measurement data, including position information and velocity information about a plurality of measurement points in a space.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a data processing device comprising: a storage device storing measurement data and a processing circuit processor are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that generically recite acquiring measurement data (including from the storage device, Claim 1) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 17 and 18 (types of sensor) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
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.
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, 4-9, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angus Pacala et al. (US 20190178998), hereinafter ‘Pacala’.
With regrds to Claim 1, Pacala discloses
A data processing device comprising:
a storage device storing measurement data, including position information and velocity information about a plurality of measurement points in a space (The visual representation may take the form of a collection of points having positions in a two-dimensional or three-dimensional space, or a mesh having vertices at various positions in a two-dimensional or three-dimensional space [0045]; The inlier set (i.e., data points for static objects) may be stored for use in determining one or more variables (e.g., speed, velocity, acceleration, etc.) and one or more risk values [0134]; control unit may access the primary model of the vehicle by retrieving it from a remotely located storage, such as a cloud storage, using a wireless communication channel [0149]; At step 708, the control unit may analyze the ranging data, which may be in the form of imaging data, received from the light ranging devices. In one embodiment, a time sequence of ranging data comprising sets of distance vectors between a surface of an object and a particular ranging device at different moments in time may be analyzed to determine the movement patterns of objects and surfaces in the environment, while accounting for any movement of the vehicle. These movement patterns may include information about changes in the positions of environmental objects and surfaces and their velocity, direction, accelerations and other similarly measures relating to the movement patterns of environmental surfaces of objects. The control unit may then use such movement pattern data along with the distance vectors and positions of points in the environment to generate projected positions of points in the environment corresponding to where the points are predicted to move to after a predetermined time segment [0155]; The telematics data and image data can be stored in a local server of a light ranging system or in a database stored of server that is connected to the light ranging system of a particular vehicle [0203]); and
a processing circuit (computer systems for processing data [0068]; ASIC 331, Fig.3), wherein the processing circuit acquires the measurement data (Processor 358, ASIC 331; the light ranging devices may continuously survey the environment surrounding the vehicle to generate ranging data that may be sent to the control unit for processing [0150]),
recognizes measurement points on a stationary object from among the plurality of measurement points on a basis of the velocity information (an environmental surface can be identified as being stationary (static), e.g., by comparing relative positions of the surfaces to each other at different times. If two surfaces are static, they will stay at the same relative positions to each other, whereas a moving object will become closer or further away from a static object. Examples of a static surface can be a line marking on a road. As an alternative, moving objects can be identified, and then removed, thereby leaving static objects. Once static surfaces are identified, changes over time of the distances vectors to these respective environmental surfaces can provide motion variables, such as velocity and acceleration. Such motion variables can be determined in various ways, as described herein. In some examples, the motion variables can be determined by subtracting the components (i.e., for different ones of three dimensions) of the distance vectors and determining a change per unit time, e.g., as a rate, such as speed or velocity. Differences in such rates can be used to determine an acceleration. A trajectory of the vehicle can be determined by determining a relative position compared to stationary surfaces at each time step. [0161-0162]), and
generates point cloud data, including the position information about the measurement points on a stationary object, on a basis of a result of the recognition (The light ranging system can create a point cloud or a set of point clouds (reconstructed model) of the environment around a moving vehicle in a series of images (ranging data stream) across a span of time around the detection of the safety event, as shown in window 1615 [0260]; the points clouds from the lidar measurements can be compared to known maps, thereby allowing a position on the map to be identified [0308]; The light ranging data can be in various forms, e.g., point clouds taken at one or more times, just a portion of a point cloud, or other data structure that includes distances to one or more objects [0311]).
Pacala also discloses retrieving data (model or map) from the database/server (the control unit may access the primary model of the vehicle by retrieving it from a remotely located storage, such as a cloud storage, using a wireless communication channel [0149]; acquires a map generated on the basis of a map acquired during a previous measurement and point cloud data [0186]).
However, Pacala does not specifically disclose wherein the processing circuit acquires the measurement data from the storage device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala that the processing circuit would acquire the measurement data from the storage device that accumulates light sensing data (memory 334, Fig.3; [0063]) in order to process the data.
With regards to Claim 4, Pacala additionally discloses wherein the processing circuit generates the point cloud data by excluding, from the measurement data, information pertaining to measurement points other than the recognized measurement points on a stationary object (As an alternative, moving objects can be identified, and then removed, thereby leaving static objects [0161]).
With regards to Claim 5, Pacala discloses the processing circuit generates the point cloud data by recognizing measurement points on a moving object from among the plurality of measurement points on a basis of the velocity information (an environmental object may be located at a substantial distance away from the vehicle 600, such as being 10 meters away from the vehicle, but have a relative velocity that is moving quickly towards the vehicle, such as a relative velocity towards the vehicle 600 of 20 meters per second … using the estimated velocity and position of every point with respect to the vehicle. [0131]).
Pacala also discloses points that were unmeasured due to the presence of the moving object (there may be regions of the environment that cannot be sensed by any of the light ranging devices 430, such regions under the vehicle 410 or immediately behind the vehicle 410 since the body of the vehicle 410 may block the field of view or line of sight of one or more light ranging devices 430 [0063]) and using other measurement data (Some embodiments can partially compensate for motion distortion using an external pose source, such as an inertial navigation system or visual odometry, and then treat the point clouds rigidly [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala to use other measurement data as a basis for filling in information about points that were unmeasured for some reason, for example, due to the presence of the moving object, to supplement the measurements (the remainder points may be assumed to correspond to moving objects or outliers caused by sensor noise, atmospheric effects, and so on [0134]).
With regards to Claim 6, Pacala discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 5.
Pacala discloses assigning a flag to the measurement points (In one example, the light ranging system can color code objects that the light ranging system detects are moving objects, stationary objects, the ground, and humans into different colors [0143]).
However, Pascale is silent on generating the point cloud data using measurement data acquired by remeasuring the flagged measurement points.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala to generate new point cloud data by remeasuring the flagged measurement points corresponding to moving objects to ensure accurate processing.
With regards to Claim 7, Pacala discloses the invention as discussed above in Claims 1 and 6, including assigning a flag (“color”) indicating a stationary or moving object as discussed above.
Pacala also recognizes stationary and moving object points as discussed in Claims 4 and 5.
With regards to Claim 8, Pacala additionally discloses the position information about the plurality of measurement points in the measurement data includes three-dimensional coordinate values for each of the plurality of measurement points [0045], and the point cloud data is three-dimensional point cloud data including the three-dimensional coordinate values for each of the measurement points on a stationary object (The map may be physical in that distances are known from different positions to other positions. And, positions of objects are known in the map. The objects can be buildings, but can also be other stationary objects, such as signs, newspaper racks, trees, etc. The first physical map can be two- or three-dimensional. Such physical maps may be obtained from past measurements of other vehicles in a fleet [0314]; also, [0133], [0162]).
With regards to Claim 9, Pacala additionally discloses that in the measurement data, the number of measurement points with the velocity information is the same as the number of measurement points with the position information (using the estimated velocity and position of every point with respect to the vehicle [0131]; combines LIDAR data with any of the following—GPS, IMU, camera and other vehicle sensor data to estimate the current six degree of freedom for velocity, acceleration, and position of the vehicle in the environment [0153]; These movement patterns may include information about changes in the positions of environmental objects and surfaces and their velocity, direction, accelerations and other similarly measures relating to the movement patterns of environmental surfaces of objects [0155]).
With regards to Claims 16 and 19, Pacala discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of SHUQING ZENG et al. (US 20180335787), hereinafter ‘Zeng’.
Pacala as a modified discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Pacala is silent on wherein the storage device stores the measurement data for each of a plurality of frames, and the measurement data for each frame includes the position information and the velocity information about the plurality of measurement points in a space.
Zeng discloses wherein the storage device stores the measurement data for each of a plurality of frames, and the measurement data for each frame includes the position information and the velocity information about the plurality of measurement points in a space [0004, 0005, 0013, 0016, 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala in view of Zeng to store the measurement data for each of a plurality of frames, and the measurement data for each frame includes the position information and the velocity information about the plurality of measurement points in a space as known in the art to compare previous data frame with a current data frame to compute a kinematic state of each of the points (Zeng [0005]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Steven Crouch et al. (US 20200132850), hereinafter ‘Crouch’.
With regards to Claim 3, Pacala as a modified discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Pacala is silent on wherein the velocity information about the plurality of measurement points in the measurement data includes first velocity information and second velocity information acquired by measuring at different measurement angles, and the processing circuit recognizes the measurement points on a stationary object on a basis of the first velocity information and the second velocity information..
Crouch discloses identifying a plurality of stationary points in the point cloud based at least in part on an inclination angle for each point in the plurality of stationary points and determining an azimuthal direction of a LIDAR velocity based on an azimuthal angle associated with a stationary point for which the relative speed is a maximum among the plurality of stationary points. [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala in view of Crouch to include the velocity information about the plurality of measurement points in the measurement data such as first velocity information and second velocity information acquired by measuring at different measurement angles to recognize the measurement points on a stationary object on a basis of the first velocity information and the second velocity information similar to identifying the plurality of stationary points in Crouch (above).
Claims 10-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Xu Chen et al. (US 20210141092), hereinafter ‘Chen’.
With regards to Claim 10, Pacala as a modified discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Pacala is silent on wherein the measurement data is sensor data outputted from a sensor using a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW), or data generated on a basis of the sensor data.
Chen discloses this limitation (Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to providing scene perception using coherent Doppler LiDAR to distinguish stationary targets from non-stationary targets. Coherent Doppler LiDAR systems, for example, a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) LiDAR system. [0116].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala in view of Chen to use sensor data outputted from a sensor using a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW), or data generated on a basis of the sensor data as known in the art (Chen).
With regards to Claim 11, Pacala additionally discloses wherein the velocity information about the plurality of measurement points includes information indicating a velocity component of the relative velocity of each of the plurality of measurement points with respect to the sensor, the velocity component being the component in the direction along a straight line connecting the sensor and each of the plurality of measurement points, and the processing circuit recognizes, from among the plurality of measurement points, measurement points for which the magnitude of the velocity component is compared with to a threshold value as the measurement points on a stationary object (It is understood that proximity may also be defined based on other factors, such as a function of the distance and relative velocity between an environmental object and the exterior of the vehicle. For example, an environmental object may be located at a substantial distance away from the vehicle 600, such as being 10 meters away from the vehicle, but have a relative velocity that is moving quickly towards the vehicle, such as a relative velocity towards the vehicle 600 of 20 meters per second. The velocity can be determined using changes over time in the distance vector from a light ranging device to a particular environmental object (surface). A function may then be applied to the distance and relative velocity of the object to determine an overall proximity value corresponding to the environmental object wherein the overall proximity value may exceed a proximity threshold. For instance, a time-to-contact value can be calculated for all points in the environment using the estimated velocity and position of every point with respect to the vehicle [0131]).
However, Pacala does not specifically disclose that measurement points for which the magnitude of the velocity component is less than or equal to a threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala in view of Chen to evaluate the measurement point against a threshold by recognizing points that are less or equal than the threshold as valid points similar to evaluating points against the proximity threshold.
With regards to Claim 12, Pacala is silent on wherein the velocity information about the plurality of measurement points includes a flag indicating whether or not a velocity component of the relative velocity of each of the plurality of measurement points with respect to the sensor is greater than a threshold value, the velocity component being the component in the direction along a straight line connecting the sensor and each of the plurality of measurement points, and the processing circuit recognizes the measurement points on a stationary object from among the plurality of measurement points on a basis of the flag.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala in view of Chen to recognize the measurement points on a stationary object from among the plurality of measurement points on a basis of the assigned flag indicating exceedance of a velocity/speed threshold as known, for example, from Mahsa Ghafarianzadeh et al. (US 20190250626, [0086]).
With regards to Claim 13, Pacala as a modified discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
Pacala disclose correcting map position data [0014].
Pacala discloses the processing circuit matches the point cloud data with map data of an environment sensed by the sensor [0163] implying determining whether the map data needs to be updated matching data to 3D map, emphasis added.
However, Pacala is silent on updating the map data on a basis of the point cloud data.
Chen discloses updating the map data on a basis of the point cloud data (The maps database 335 may also include road or street characteristics, for example, speed limits, location of stop lights/stop signs, lane divisions, school locations, etc. The map database contents can be produced or updated by a server connected through a wireless system in communication with the Internet, even as the vehicle 100 is driven along existing streets, yielding an up-to-date map [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala in view of Chen to update the map data on a basis of the point cloud data when it is determined a mismatch to improve accuracy.
With regards to Claim 14, Pacala additionally discloses acquiring map data of an environment sensed by the sensor (using a map determined from the lidar measurements [0163]), and matches the point cloud data with the map data to thereby estimate the position and/or orientation of the sensor (the system can match its data to the 3D map that is already loaded in memory. Localizing to a map can be a robust approach that can provide global positioning information if the map has been computed into a global frame of reference, as is discussed in more detail later [0163]; high accuracy map-based localization using the lidar sensors [0226]; [0113]).
With regards to Claim 15, Pacala additionally discloses recognizing a measurement point on a moving object from among the plurality of measurement points as discussed in Claim 5 as well as measuring the measurement point [0180].
With regards to Claim 17, Pacala in view of Chen discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 10.
With regards to Claim 18, Pacala is silent with regards to the sensor that is a radar.
Chen discloses such sensor [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacala in view of Chen to use a radar sensor as known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights