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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 ln. 5: “executable” appears and should be removed
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 1-5 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, 4, and 5 recite “estimate a self-location of an ego-vehicle”. However, it is not clear if the ego-vehicle is the “autonomous driving vehicle” or a different vehicle. Therefore, Claim 1 (and claims 2-3 by dependence), and claims 4-5 are indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret the ego-vehicle as the autonomous driving vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by Abari US 202200660002 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Abari teaches an external recognition apparatus for an autonomous driving vehicle (autonomous vehicle 102 in Fig. 1A or 202 in Fig. 2, [0042, 66]), comprising:
an external sensor (LiDAR 204 in Fig. 2, [0066]);
at least one processor (602 in Fig. 6, [0089]); and
at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing executable a plurality of instructions ([0090]), the plurality of instructions being configured to cause the at least one processor to:
estimate a self-location of an ego-vehicle (GPS IMU, [0049-52, 55-56]),
acquire registration information of a known stationary object associated with the self-location (prior determined location of statically mapped object and characteristics, [0051, 54]),
acquire sensor information corresponding to the stationary object by the external sensor (capture point cloud data, [0049]), and
adjust a value of a specific parameter related to the sensor information among parameters of a recognition algorithm based on a deviation between the registration information and the sensor information (adjusts calibration based on deviation between determined location and known location, [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Sato teaches a method for adjusting parameters of a recognition algorithm of an autonomous driving vehicle by an on-board computer (602 in Fig. 6, [0089-90] on autonomous vehicle 102 in Fig. 1A or 202 in Fig. 2, [0042, 66]), the method comprising:
estimating a self-location of an ego-vehicle (GPS IMU, [0049-52, 55-56]);
acquiring registration information of a known stationary object associated with the self-location (prior determined location of statically mapped object and characteristics, [0051, 54]);
acquiring sensor information corresponding to the stationary object by an external sensor mounted on the ego-vehicle (capture point cloud data, [0049]); and
adjusting a value of a specific parameter related to the sensor information among the parameters based on a deviation between the registration information and the sensor information (adjusts calibration based on deviation between determined location and known location, [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Sato teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program executable by an on-board computer of an autonomous driving vehicle (602 in Fig. 6, [0089-90] on autonomous vehicle 102 in Fig. 1A or 202 in Fig. 2, [0042, 66]), the program being configured to cause the on-board computer to:
estimate a self-location of an ego-vehicle; acquire registration information of a known stationary object associated with the self-location (GPS IMU, [0049-52, 55-56]);
acquire sensor information corresponding to the stationary object by an external sensor mounted on the ego-vehicle (capture point cloud data, [0049]); and
adjust a value of a specific parameter related to the sensor information among parameters of a recognition algorithm based on a deviation between the registration information and the sensor information (adjusts calibration based on deviation between determined location and known location, [0057]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari US 20220066002 A1 in view of Zhu US 20210263159 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Abari teaches the external environment recognition apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the external sensor includes a LiDAR (204 in Fig. 2, [0066]),
Abari does not explicitly teach the specific parameter includes at least one of a threshold of a distance between points used for clustering a point cloud obtained by the LiDAR, a threshold of gas likelihood used for determining whether the point cloud subjected to clustering is a gas, and a variance of probability density distribution of future locations of the clustered point cloud.
Zhu teaches adjusting clustering distance thresholds ([0057-58])
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 such that the specific parameter includes at least one of a threshold of a distance between points used for clustering a point cloud obtained by the LiDAR, a threshold of gas likelihood used for determining whether the point cloud subjected to clustering is a gas, and a variance of probability density distribution of future locations of the clustered point cloud similar to Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure correct identification of the detected objects.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato US 20130163865 A1 in view of Held US 20150363940 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches an external recognition apparatus for a driving vehicle (in-vehicle device 1 installed on vehicle 2, Fig. 1, [0026]), comprising:
an external sensor (camera 85, Fig. 1, [0032-33]);
at least one processor (control unit 10, Fig. 1, [0027]); and
at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing executable a plurality of instructions (ROM or RAM associated with control unit 10 and guidance program, Fig. 1, [0014, 27]; claim 9), the plurality of instructions being configured to cause the at least one processor to:
estimate a self-location of an ego-vehicle (S111-S113, Fig. 3, [0070-72]),
acquire registration information of a known stationary object associated with the self-location (S104 , Fig. 2, [0039-42, 70-72]),
acquire sensor information corresponding to the stationary object by the external sensor (S114, Fig. 3, [0073];), and
adjust a value of a specific parameter related to the sensor information among parameters of a recognition algorithm based on a deviation between the registration information and the sensor information (S309-S310, Fig. 4, [0066-68]).
Sato does not explicitly teach the driving vehicle is an autonomous driving vehicle.
Held teaches autonomous driving vehicles ([0058])
Additionally, autonomous driving vehicles are well-known in the art. 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 such that the driving vehicle is an autonomous driving vehicle similar to Held with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping improve the safety of an autonomous driving vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Sato teaches a method for adjusting parameters of a recognition algorithm of a driving vehicle by an on-board computer (in-vehicle device 1 with control unit 10 installed on vehicle 2, Fig. 1, [0026]), the method comprising:
estimating a self-location of an ego-vehicle (S111-S113, Fig. 3, [0070-72]);
acquiring registration information of a known stationary object associated with the self-location (S104 , Fig. 2, [0039-42, 70-72]);
acquiring sensor information corresponding to the stationary object by an external sensor mounted on the ego-vehicle (S114, Fig. 3, [0073]); and
adjusting a value of a specific parameter related to the sensor information among the parameters based on a deviation between the registration information and the sensor information (S309-S310, Fig. 4, [0066-68]).
Sato does not explicitly teach the driving vehicle is an autonomous driving vehicle.
Held teaches autonomous driving vehicles ([0058])
Additionally, autonomous driving vehicles are well-known in the art. 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 such that the driving vehicle is an autonomous driving vehicle similar to Held with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping improve the safety of an autonomous driving vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Sato teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program executable by an on-board computer of a driving vehicle (ROM or RAM associated with control unit 10 and guidance program of vehicle 2, Fig. 1, [0014, 27]; claim 9), the program being configured to cause the on-board computer to:
estimate a self-location of an ego-vehicle (S111-S113, Fig. 3, [0070-72]);
acquire registration information of a known stationary object associated with the self-location (S104 , Fig. 2, [0039-42, 70-72]);
acquire sensor information corresponding to the stationary object by an external sensor mounted on the ego-vehicle (S114, Fig. 3, [0073]); and
adjust a value of a specific parameter related to the sensor information among parameters of a recognition algorithm based on a deviation between the registration information and the sensor information (S309-S310, Fig. 4, [0066-68])
Sato does not explicitly teach the driving vehicle is an autonomous driving vehicle.
Held teaches autonomous driving vehicles ([0058])
Additionally, autonomous driving vehicles are well-known in the art. 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 such that the driving vehicle is an autonomous driving vehicle similar to Held with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping improve the safety of an autonomous driving vehicle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato US 20130163865 A1 in view of Held US 20150363940 A1 and further in view of Kato US 20200311427 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Sato as modified above teaches the external environment recognition apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the external sensor includes a camera (camera 85, Fig. 1, [0032-33]),
Sato does not explicitly teach the specific parameter includes a correction value for a hue of an HSV image obtained by the camera.
Kato teaches correcting due to color phase changing caused by sunlight using an HSV color space ([0038-40, 61-62])
Additionally, autonomous driving vehicles are well-known in the art. 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 such that the specific parameter includes a correction value for a hue of an HSV image obtained by the camera similar to Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping improve detection of the known object and other objects in different lighting conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hong US 20230060463 A1 teaches adjusting distance thresholds for clustering to ensure clusters are in desired locations ([0043, 56])
Stumm US 12475579 B1 teaches optimization of point cloud registration with repulsive factors (Fig. 4)
Niigaki US 20230260216 A1 teaches clustering using a plurality of clustering schemes and adjusting a clustering threshold parameter ([0051])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights