DETAILED ACTION
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-8 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 05/03/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
5. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Arguments
6. Regarding 103(a) rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 07/19/2024 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that limitations in Claim 1 and 5 regarding the use of a gated camera is not taught. Examiner agrees, However, Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil discloses a camera in which that is capturing images along the route and determining objects that will force a braking/evading. While this process does disclose a general imaging device, it is obvious a gated camera can be combined so that the imaging is less affected by noises/disturbances from other light sources. Therefore, Examiner brings forth reference Hicks (US 20200018854) in which is used to teach the gated camera and in which can be used in combination with Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil to teach the limitations of the claim. This indicates that Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil in further view of Hicks does teach the capability of the amended claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
8. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokhorov (US 20170043768) in view of Pazhayampallil (US 20210261159) in further view of Hicks (US 20200018854).
Regarding Claim 1, Prokhorov discloses A method for operating an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: (Prokhorov, see at least [0003] wherein the method is directed to operating an autonomous vehicle)
a longitudinal direction in front of the vehicle; (Prokhorov, see at least Fig. 3A and 3B wherein showcases an object being detected in a longitudinal direction in front of the vehicles)
recognizing, by the autonomous vehicle, at least one object in the recorded images; (Prokhorov, see at least [0099] wherein the vehicle can detect the environment by using a sensor and/or camera system)
wherein, when the distinct movement of the at least one object is erratic or the at least one object is moved out of the driving corridor, the at least one object is classified as able to be driven over, (Prokhorov, see at least [0099-0100] wherein the vehicle can detect an object (small paper bag) that escaped through an open window of a vehicle and blows within the wind. The object moves and travels into the second travel lane (lane that the vehicle is within), and the movement of the object is moving in multiple directions and determined to be a small object. The vehicle then determines is a small object, it can ignore the object and continue maintaining its current travel path and would move forward and advance over the paper bag.)
wherein, when the distinct movement of the at least one object is not erratic or the at least one object is not moved out of the driving corridor, the at least one object is classified as not able to be driven over and the autonomous vehicle performs the braking maneuver or the evading maneuver. (Prokhorov, see at least [0041] and [0050-0051] wherein the movement of the object is classified as being as moving in an expected path and the size of the object is large (difficult to drive over), an aggressive action (changing lanes, driving partially off the road, gradual decelerate, etc) can be taken to avoid collision with the object.)
Prokhorov does not explicitly disclose recording, by a gated camera of the autonomous vehicle, images of a roadway in a longitudinal direction in front of the vehicle time-synchronized with a light emitted from the autonomous vehicle to generate a plurality of gated images that each include different regions in the longitudinal direction;
determining, using an optical flow that considers distinct movement information of the autonomous vehicle, whether a braking maneuver or an evading maneuver is required to avoid a collision with the at least one object, wherein it is determined using the optical flow whether the at least one object is in contact with the roadway, has a distinct movement, is moved out of a driving corridor of the autonomous vehicle, or is moved into the driving corridor of the autonomous vehicle,
However, Pazhayampallil in which is directed to object avoidance during autonomous navigation of a vehicle discloses recording, by a time-synchronized with a light emitted from the autonomous vehicle to generate a plurality of each include different regions in the longitudinal direction; (Pazhayampallil, see at least [0022-0023] wherein the autonomous vehicle can utilize cameras to output images and utilize lidar and radar sensors to detect presence and speeds of objects near the autonomous vehicle in which the controller within the autonomous vehicle can fuse data steams into one image, in which the image can contain points that represent roads, sidewalks, vehicles, pedestrians, etc. in the field around the autonomous vehicle. The autonomous vehicle can additionally include infrared emitters to project structured light into a field.)
determining, using an optical flow that considers distinct movement information of the autonomous vehicle , whether a braking maneuver or an evading maneuver is required to avoid a collision with the at least one object, wherein it is determined using the optical flow whether the at least one object is in contact with the roadway, has a distinct movement, is moved out of a driving corridor of the autonomous vehicle, or is moved into the driving corridor of the autonomous vehicle, (Pazhayampallil, see at least [0177-0179] wherein the autonomous vehicle can characterize a direction of uncertainty of motion of an object (tangential azimuthal and/or tangential elevation directions) and predict a future direction of uncertainty to predict whether or not the object’s position is relativity close to the autonomous vehicle and in path of the vehicle and can therefore inform a response to avoid a collision with the object through braking/steering methods. ** tangential azimuthal direction is a type of component within an optical flow field. ** while Pazhayampallil does not explicitly disclose gated images, it does determine whether a braking maneuver or an evading maneuver is required to avoid a collision based on distinct movement information of the autonomous vehicle and plurality of images. Gated images obtained by a gated camera are merely images with less noise/interference, i.e., the camera sensor only opens to receive light when own light source illuminates, so the sensor sees less light from other sources. If not considering the gated camera/images, capturing images along the route and determining objects that will force a braking/evading. Therefore, the reference Hicks discloses gated images and can be combined with Pazhayampallil so that the image is less affected by noises/disturbance from other light source.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prokhorov to include the capability of categorizing a direction of motion of an object and determining if a maneuver is required to avoid a collision when the object is within the path of the autonomous vehicle as taught by Pazhayampallil with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the system of Prokhorov to utilize the data correlating to the objects movements to further recognize if the object is in the path of the vehicle, and therefore improve vehicle safety in determining if a collision is avoidable or if not avoidable, the vehicle is able to maneuver around the object.
Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil does not explicity disclose a gated camera
However, Hicks, in which is directed to machine vision system comprises a camera configured to generate one or more images of a field of regard of the camera, a lidar system, and a processor discloses a gated camera (Hicks, see at least [0055] the camera perceives depth information using time-gated exposures. This can be done with active illumination. The camera can detect relative positions of objects in space by segmenting the image and identifying which objects are in the foreground of other objects. The images from the camera may be processed using a classifier that may generate at least approximate distance information.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil to include the capability of utilizing gated cameras as taught by Hicks with reasonable expectation that this would allow for a camera to sync with a light source and generate gated images, and therefore improve vehicle safety in determining if a collision is avoidable or if not avoidable, the vehicle is able to maneuver around the object.
Regarding Claim 3, Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil in view of Hicks discloses The method of claim 1, (see rejection above)
a significance attribute is allocated to the at least one object by the classification of the at least one object. (Prokhorov, see at least [0099-0100] wherein the size of the object can be used to classify the object)
Regarding Claim 4, Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil in view of Hicks discloses The method of claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the distinct movement information of the autonomous vehicle comprises a longitudinal speed, a yaw speed, or a pitching speed. (Prokhorov, see at least [0054] wherein the collision determination module uses a vehicles speed to determine or predict a collision)
Regarding Claim 5, Prokhorov discloses A control unit configured to control an autonomous vehicle, (Prokhorov, see at least [0003] wherein the method is directed to operating an autonomous vehicle)
wherein the control unit is configured to longitudinal direction in front of the vehicle; (Prokhorov, see at least Fig. 3A and 3B wherein showcases an object being detected in a longitudinal direction in front of the vehicles)
recognize, by the autonomous vehicle, at least one object in the recorded images; (Prokhorov, see at least [0099] wherein the vehicle can detect the environment by using a sensor and/or camera system)
wherein, when the distinct movement of the at least one object is erratic or the at least one object is moved out of the driving corridor, the at least one object is classified as able to be driven over, (Prokhorov, see at least [0099-0100] wherein the vehicle can detect an object (small paper bag) that escaped through an open window of a vehicle and blows within the wind. The object moves and travels into the second travel lane (lane that the vehicle is within), and the movement of the object is moving in multiple directions and determined to be a small object. The vehicle then determines is a small object, it can ignore the object and continue maintaining its current travel path and would move forward and advance over the paper bag.)
wherein, when the distinct movement of the at least one object is not erratic or the at least one object is not moved out of the driving corridor, the at least one object is classified as not able to be driven over and the autonomous vehicle performs the braking maneuver or the evading maneuver. (Prokhorov, see at least [0041] and [0050-0051] wherein the movement of the object is classified as being as moving in an expected path and the size of the object is large (difficult to drive over), an aggressive action (changing lanes, driving partially off the road, gradual decelerate, etc) can be taken to avoid collision with the object.)
Prokhorov does not explicitly disclose record, by a gated camera of the autonomous vehicle, images of a roadway in a longitudinal direction in front of the vehicle time-synchronized with a light emitted from the autonomous vehicle to generate a plurality of gated images that each include different regions in the longitudinal direction;
determine, using an optical flow that considers distinct movement information of the autonomous vehicle and the plurality of gated images, whether a braking maneuver or an evading maneuver is required to avoid a collision with the at least one object, wherein it is determined using the optical flow whether the at least one object is in contact with the roadway, has a distinct movement, is moved out of a driving corridor of the autonomous vehicle, or is moved into the driving corridor of the autonomous vehicle,
However, Pazhayampallil in which is directed to object avoidance during autonomous navigation of a vehicle discloses record, by a time-synchronized with a light emitted from the autonomous vehicle to generate a plurality of (Pazhayampallil, see at least [0022-0023] wherein the autonomous vehicle can utilize cameras to output images and utilize lidar and radar sensors to detect presence and speeds of objects near the autonomous vehicle in which the controller within the autonomous vehicle can fuse data steams into one image, in which the image can contain points that represent roads, sidewalks, vehicles, pedestrians, etc. in the field around the autonomous vehicle. The autonomous vehicle can additionally include infrared emitters to project structured light into a field.)
determine, using an optical flow that considers distinct movement information of the autonomous vehicle , whether a braking maneuver or an evading maneuver is required to avoid a collision with the at least one object, wherein it is determined using the optical flow whether the at least one object is in contact with the roadway, has a distinct movement, is moved out of a driving corridor of the autonomous vehicle, or is moved into the driving corridor of the autonomous vehicle, (Pazhayampallil, see at least [0177-0179] wherein the autonomous vehicle can characterize a direction of uncertainty of motion of an object (tangential azimuthal and/or tangential elevation directions) and predict a future direction of uncertainty to predict whether or not the object’s position is relativity close to the autonomous vehicle and in path of the vehicle and can therefore inform a response to avoid a collision with the object through braking/steering methods. ** tangential azimuthal direction is a type of component within an optical flow field. ** while Pazhayampallil does not explicitly disclose gated images, it does determine whether a braking maneuver or an evading maneuver is required to avoid a collision based on distinct movement information of the autonomous vehicle and plurality of images. Gated images obtained by a gated camera are merely images with less noise/interference, i.e., the camera sensor only opens to receive light when own light source illuminates, so the sensor sees less light from other sources. If not considering the gated camera/images, capturing images along the route and determining objects that will force a braking/evading. Therefore, the reference Hicks discloses gated images and can be combined with Pazhayampallil so that the image is less affected by noises/disturbance from other light source.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prokhorov to include the capability of categorizing a direction of motion of an object and determining if a maneuver is required to avoid a collision when the object is within the path of the autonomous vehicle as taught by Pazhayampallil with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the system of Prokhorov to utilize the data correlating to the objects movements to further recognize if the object is in the path of the vehicle, and therefore improve vehicle safety in determining if a collision is avoidable or if not avoidable, the vehicle is able to maneuver around the object.
Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil does not explicity disclose a gated camera
However, Hicks, in which is directed to machine vision system comprises a camera configured to generate one or more images of a field of regard of the camera, a lidar system, and a processor discloses a gated camera (Hicks, see at least [0055] the camera perceives depth information using time-gated exposures. This can be done with active illumination. The camera can detect relative positions of objects in space by segmenting the image and identifying which objects are in the foreground of other objects. The images from the camera may be processed using a classifier that may generate at least approximate distance information.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil to include the capability of utilizing gated cameras as taught by Hicks with reasonable expectation that this would allow for a camera to sync with a light source and generate gated images, and therefore improve vehicle safety in determining if a collision is avoidable or if not avoidable, the vehicle is able to maneuver around the object.
Regarding Claim 7, Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil in view of Hicks discloses The control unit of claim 5, (see rejection above)
wherein the control unit is configured to allocate a significance attribute to the at least one object by the classification of the at least one object. (Prokhorov, see at least [0099-0100] wherein the size of the object can be used to classify the object)
Regarding Claim 8, Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil in view of Hicks discloses The control unit of claim 5, (see rejection above)
wherein the distinct movement information of the autonomous vehicle comprises a longitudinal speed, a yaw speed, or a pitching speed. (Prokhorov, see at least [0054] wherein the collision determination module uses a vehicles speed to determine or predict a collision)
9. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokhorov (US 20170043768) in view of Pazhayampallil (US 20210261159) in further view of Hicks (US 20200018854) in furthest view of Auner (US 20200042801).
Regarding Claim 2, Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil in view of Hicks discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: (see rejection above)
Modified Prokhorov does not explicitly disclose determining the optical flow considering a shadow of the at least one object.
However, Auner in which is directed to object detection in an eternal environment of a vehicle in which discloses determining the optical flow considering a shadow of the at least one object. (Auner, see at least [0005] wherein sensors can detect a presence of an object in an external environment using the detected shadow)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prokhorov to include the capability of detecting objects shadows as taught by Auner with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the system of Prokhorov to utilize the data correlating to the objects shadow to further recognize if the object is in contact with the road, and therefore improve vehicle safety in determining if a collision is avoidable or if not avoidable, the vehicle is able to maneuver around the object.
Regarding Claim 6, Prokhorov in view of Pazhayampallil in view of Hicks discloses The control unit of claim 5, (see rejection above)
Modified Prokhorov does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to determine the optical flow considering a shadow of the at least one object.
However, Auner in which is directed to object detection in an eternal environment of a vehicle in which discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine the optical flow considering a shadow of the at least one object. (Auner, see at least [0005] wherein sensors can detect a presence of an object in an external environment using the detected shadow)
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102020100685 – A sequential deep neural network can be trained using ground truth data that is obtained by correlating sensor data with image data representative of an image sequence. In use, the sequential DNN can leverage sensor correlation to compute various predictions using only image data. The predictions can include speeds of objects in world space in fields of view of a first-person vehicle, current and future locations of the objects in the image space and / or a time to collision between the objects and the first-person vehicle. These predictions can be used as part of a perceptual system to understand and respond to a current physical environment of the ego vehicle.
US 20210110176 – An obstacle identification apparatus acquires an image that is captured by a camera that is mounted to a vehicle. The obstacle identification apparatus calculates a first gradient that is a gradient in a first direction of a luminance value of pixels in the image and a second gradient that is a gradient of the luminance value in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction of the first gradient. Based on the first gradient and the second gradient, the obstacle identification apparatus estimates a shadow boundary that is a boundary between an own-vehicle shadow that is a shadow of the own vehicle and an object outside the vehicle. Based on the estimated shadow boundary, the obstacle identification apparatus estimates the own-vehicle shadow.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664