DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 5/6/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Equation 5 on the top of p. 32 is missing a negative sign in the middle of the expression in the first element of the array on the right and a positive sign in the middle of the expression in the second element of the array on the right.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5, 12-14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, add “and” at the end of line 7
Claim 3, add “and” at the end of line 8
Claim 5, on lines 1-2 and line 10, replace “wherein the vehicle is driven…” with “wherein when the vehicle is driven…”
Claim 5, replace “based on” with “further based on” for both occurrences to be in line with the limitations of the independent claim.
Claim 12, line 25, replace “adjusting a plurality of fifth points…” with “adjusting the plurality of fifth points…” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13, add “and” at the end of line 5
Claim 14, add “and” at the end of line 8
Claim 16, on lines 1-2 and lines 9-10, replace “wherein the vehicle is driven …, further comprising…” with “wherein when the vehicle is driven …, the method further comprises …”
Claim 16, replace “based on” with “further based on” for both occurrences to be in line with the limitations of the independent claim.
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 2-4 and 13-15 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.
Each of claims 2 and 13 recites: “merging the first cluster and the second cluster based on an angle between the first slope and the second slope, wherein the second slope is smaller than or equal to a threshold/specified angle”.
Examiner finds this to raise confusion and indefiniteness since it is unclear whether the condition for merging depends on the second slope or the angle between the first slope and second being smaller than or equal to a threshold angle.
In agreement with the disclosure at [0158], Examiner suggests amending this portion of each of claims 2 and 13 to recite: “merging the first cluster and the second cluster based on an angle between the first slope and the second slope being smaller than or equal to a threshold/specified angle”.
Each of claims 3 and 14 recites: “merging the first cluster and the second cluster, based on at least one of:
the distance between the first minimum value and the second maximum value, or
the distance between the second minimum value and the first maximum value, wherein the first maximum value is smaller than or equal to a specified/threshold distance.”
Examiner finds this to raise confusion and indefiniteness since it is unclear whether the condition for merging depends on the first maximum value or the distances between the respective minimum and maximum values being smaller than or equal to a threshold distance. The disclosure emphasizes that this updating step following the modification of the split views is essential to the invention [see [0061]].
In agreement with the disclosure at [0129], Examiner suggests amending this portion of each of claims 3 and 14 to recite: “merging the first cluster and the second cluster, based on at least one of: the distance between the first minimum value and the second maximum value[[,]] or the distance between the second minimum value and the first maximum valuebeing smaller than or equal to a specified/threshold distance.”
Each of claims 4 and 15 recites: “wherein a type of the objects specified at the first time point comprises: a first type in which the objects are in a stationary state, a second type in which the objects are in a movement state, and a third type in which the objects are not in either the stationary state or the movement state”.
Examiner finds the third type to raise confusion and indefiniteness since it is unclear how an object would be classified or described as “not in either the stationary state or the movement state” since these two states cover the entire space of possibilities for a state of an object with respect to motion.
Examiner suggests either removing the third type or amending it to indicate a status of not being identified with respect to a mobility status. If Applicant chooses the latter, support from the original disclosure would need to be provided.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 12 each recite “at a first time point, determine first virtual boxes corresponding to objects …, wherein the objects are external to the vehicle, and the first virtual boxes comprise a plurality of first points”, “at a second time point after the first time point, convert the plurality of first points into a plurality of second points while the vehicle is driving and determine second virtual boxes corresponding to the objects detected at the second time point, wherein the second virtual boxes comprise a plurality of fifth points”, “perform, based on the converting, clustering on the plurality of second points to generate a plurality of clusters comprising a first cluster and a second cluster”, “generate a third cluster obtained by merging the first cluster and the second cluster based on at least one of slope information or distance information which is obtained by the first cluster and the second cluster”, “determine a direction, in which the third cluster is located relative to the vehicle, based on at least one of: an intermediate value of a plurality of third points included in the third cluster, or a minimum value of the plurality of third point”, “adjust the plurality of fifth points based on a plurality of fourth points obtained by sampling the plurality of third points at an interval”, and “determine, based on the adjusted plurality of fifth points, the second virtual boxes as a road edge”, all of which can be recognized as either concepts that can be performed in the human mind (note the determination of first and second virtual boxes corresponding to objects … , the clustering, and the determination of the second virtual boxes as a road edge based on the adjusted plurality of fifth points, which are judgements based on observations) and thus falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas or steps involving mathematical relationships or calculations (note the merging based on slope and/or distance, the determination of direction based on an intermediate or minimum value, and the adjustment of points based on points obtained by sampling at an interval) which fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas, but for the recitation of generic computer components (such as “a processor” (for claim 1) and “ a sensor” for claims 1 and 12). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the above-indicated limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, the additional element of “output, based on the road edge, a signal” (in claims 1 and 12) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output. 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 additional element of “to control the vehicle” (claims 1 and 12) merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Thus, it is an equivalent of “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
The claims do 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 an apparatus, a processor, or sensor to perform the steps described above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “outputting” step is further considered well-understood, routine, and conventional in view of the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicating that mere receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Neither can insignificant extra-solution activity nor can adding an equivalent of “apply it. All of these additional elements as generically claimed are thus considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Therefore, these limitations, taken alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more that the abstract idea.
Thus, these independent claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations of specifying mathematical conditions for merging the first and second clusters (claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 20), determining differences between the plurality of fourth points stored in a first region and the plurality of fifth points, which are stored in a second region and which respectively correspond to the plurality of fourth points; and adjusting each of the plurality of fifth points based on an average of the determined differences (claims 6 and 17), and determining that the first cluster and the second cluster are within a reference distance based on a lateral direction of the vehicle (claim 11). These above-indicated additional limitations also constitute steps involving mathematical relationships or calculations which fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements of specifying certain parameters for determining slope and distance information (claims 2, 3, 13, and 14), specifying types of objects detected (claim 4 and 15), specifying certain parameters used to determine the direction in different situations (claims 5 and 16), specifying certain parameters used for point conversion (claims 7, 8, 18, and 19), all amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity/specifications related to the processing. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, these limitations, taken alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more that the abstract idea.
Thus, all of the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-11 and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Examiner notes from the cited art:
Silver et al., US Patent No. 9,285,230 B1, which teaches detecting road curbs using multiple point clouds [see e.g. fig. 5 and col. 14, lines 38-49] including adjusting a dense point cloud representation [see e.g. col. 15, lines 4-9] but does not perform processing on transformed point clouds of earlier frames prior to using them to adjust newer frames.
HUANG et al., US PGPUB 2024/0005674 A1, which teaches determining candidate road edge points of a current frame (observation values) and obtaining prediction values based on candidate road edge points of a previous frame, then processing the observation values and the prediction values to a obtain filtered candidate road edge points [see e.g. [0009] and [0089]-[0090]] but, again, does not perform processing on transformed point clouds of earlier frames prior to using them to adjust newer frames.
Alghanem et al., US PGPUB 2022/0126873 A1, which teaches processing data points including creating segments and merging segments for object detection to facilitate autonomous driving [see e.g. [0003] and fig. 7] as well as downsampling the data points [0114] but does not address using frames acquired at different time points.
Wei et al., US Patent No. 11,500,101 B2, which teaches accumulating consecutive point-cloud frames into a common coordinate system to be used for curb detection [see e.g. fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 5-13 and lines 27-34], but, again, does not perform processing on transformed point clouds of earlier frames prior to using them to adjust newer frames.
Adams et al., US PGPUB 2020/0372285 A1, which teaches determining a location of a feature with respect to a vehicle based on a mean of a cluster of Lidar points [see e.g. [0014]].
Ikami et al., US PGPUB 2017/0363671 A1, which teaches combining clusters based on a separation between the clusters, the separation being defined as a separation between a minimum value in a cluster and a maximum value in another cluster [see fig. 6A, [0085] and claim 6].
Chen et al., US PGPUB 2023/0162446 A1, which teaches coordinate transformation for point clouds based on vehicle speed and traveling direction [see e.g. [0072].
None of the cited art teaches transforming previously acquired frames of point clouds corresponding to bounding boxes associated with detected objects and processing the transformed frames (including clustering, merging certain clusters, determining direction of merged cluster, and sampling points of the merged cluster) to adjust present frames of point clouds corresponding to equivalent bounding boxes for road edge detection. The sequence of processing indicated in the claim limitations would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, based on the combinations of teachings of the cited art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights