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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the changes made regarding 35 USC § 101 to independent claim 1 found in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 2-3 and 5-6. The Examiner has considered the amended claim limitation generate the control command including at least one of an acceleration and a steering angle for a traveling actuator of the movable body, based on the position and the orientation of the movable body and a target route preset along the travel path and the amendment properly integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0260132 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Keller] in view of Millett (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0071234 A1), the Applicant has elected to amend the aforementioned claim. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 103 is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, new reference Shinkuma (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0412384 A1) has been necessitated. Therefore, a new rejection based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues, see pg. 7, that neither Keller nor Millet disclose or teach the limitation generate the control command including at least one of an acceleration and a steering angle for a traveling actuator of the movable body, based on the position and the orientation of the movable body and a target route preset along the travel path. However Millet teaches in [0029] the system includes a feedback mechanism for controlling the autonomous entity's movements according to the collected data, which is construed as necessarily controlling the acceleration or steering angle based on the data from the point cloud. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Further, the Applicant argues that the references neither disclose or teach acquire three-dimensional point cloud data measured by the plurality of distance measurement devices fixedly arranged around the travel path, the three-dimensional point cloud data being measured with the movable body as a measurement target. However, Keller, as modified by Millet, discloses the limitation acquire three-dimensional point cloud data measured by the plurality of distance measurement devices in [0024] of Keller and [0027] of Millet, as discussed in the previous rejection. Furthermore, Shinkuma teaches in [0005] that LiDAR technology enables the accurate detection of not only the distance to the object but also its position and shape and is construed as a distance measuring device. Shinkuma further teaches in Fig. 3 (below) that the LiDAR are fixedly arranged around the travel path inside of an indoor space such as a factory. Therefore, this argument is moot.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0260132 A1), hereinafter referred to as Keller, in view of Millett (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0071234 A1) and Shinkuma (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0412384 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Keller discloses:
A control device configured to generate a control command for controlling a movable body to move along a travel path, ([0003] A detection of static surroundings is necessary for various driver assistance functions, for example a parking distance control, an automated parking, and for multiple levels of autonomous driving, and a movable body is construed as the host vehicle but the detected objects may be other cars which are necessarily movable objects), comprising:
a processor ([0041] The control device of the vehicle may be a processor, an ASIC, a control unit or any other programmable element); and
memory storing one or more instructions ([0049] environmental data is stored in memory),
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the control device to: create combined point cloud data that are obtained by two or more distance measurement devices of the plurality of distance measurement devices ([0015] a cluster can be understood to be an accumulation of multiple measuring points, the measuring points each being separate data objects and [0024] multiple determination data sets are determined in multiple measurement cycles, and during the cluster step, each point cloud measurement of a particular determination data set is assigned to a particular cluster, which corresponds to a center of the point cloud measurements of the determination data set, particular clusters of particular determination data sets being combined into a composite cluster if a distance of the particular clusters between two consecutive measurements is less than a predefined distance threshold value);
execute a first estimation process of estimating at least one of a position and orientation of the movable body, using the combined point cloud data (see [0003], [0007], and [0024-25] where a control unit determines information in a data set in order to execute control over a motor vehicle, [0034] where information pertains to position and/or orientation),
but Keller does not explicitly disclose:
combining two or more pieces of three-dimensional point cloud data; and
generate the control command including at least one of an acceleration and a steering angle for a traveling actuator of the movable body, based on the position and the orientation of the movable body and a target route preset along the travel path.
However, Millett teaches in [0047] sentence (s.) 3 the combining of data received from sensors, which are accelerometers but may necessarily be sensors for determining distance as taught in [0027] (s.1 data devices for geospatial data sensing capabilities). Furthermore, Millet teaches in [0027] the use of 3D point cloud generation for data processing. Further in [0029] the system includes a feedback mechanism for controlling the autonomous entity's movements according to the collected data, which is construed as necessarily controlling the acceleration or steering angle based on the data from the point cloud.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system of Keller, by incorporating the point cloud teachings of Millett, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of combining three-dimensional point cloud data for the purposes of controlling a movable body.
However, although Keller, as modified by Millet, discloses the limitation acquire three-dimensional point cloud data measured by the plurality of distance measurement devices in [0024] of Keller and [0027] of Millet as discussed above,
distance measurement devices fixedly arranged around the travel path, the three-dimensional point cloud data being measured with the movable body as a measurement target;
wherein the travel path is located in a factory.
However, Shinkuma teaches in [0005] that LiDAR technology enables the accurate detection of not only the distance to the object but also its position and shape and is construed as a distance measuring device. In Fig. 3 below it is taught that the LiDAR is fixedly arranged around the travel path. In Fig. 6 below Shinkuma teaches the merging of a plurality of point cloud data to describe objects within an enclosed a three dimensional environment. Further, in [0048] the reference teaches a real space is a three-dimensional space that comprises indoor spaces which necessarily includes a factory.
PNG
media_image1.png
365
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
391
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the object detection of Keller, as already modified by the point cloud teachings of Millett, by incorporating the fixed arrangement of a distance measuring device teachings of Shinkuma that the combination would provide for the predictable result of combining three-dimensional point cloud data for the purposes of controlling a movable body and accurately depicting a three-dimensional environment into a point cloud dataset.
Regarding claim 6, Keller, as modified by Millett and Shinkuma, discloses:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of distance measurement devices are arranged around the travel path such that, when the moving body is present at any position on the travel path, at least two distance measurement devices among the plurality of distance measurement devices measure the moving body from different directions (see claim 1 specifically Fig. 3 where two distance measurement devices measure objects from different directions, including that of moving bodies).
__________________________________________
Claim 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0260132 A1), hereinafter referred to as Keller, in view of Millett (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0071234 A1), Shinkuma (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0412384 A1), and Ren et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0092343 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ren.
Regarding claim 2, Keller, as modified by Millett and Shinkuma, discloses:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the control device to execute the first estimation process, when an allowable processing time for the first estimation process is equal to or longer than a time reference value ([0020] the use of time-indexed data),
but Keller, as modified by Millett does not explicitly disclose:
when an allowable processing time for the first estimation process is equal to or longer than a time reference value.
However, Ren teaches in the last sentence of [0006] that defining a maximum computing time for each of the processing nodes within a processing time range allowed by the system which is interpreted by the Examiner as an allowable processing time equal to or less than a time reference value.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the object detection of Keller, as already modified by the point cloud teachings of Millett and the fixed arrangement of a distance measuring device teachings of Shinkuma, by incorporating the time reference teachings of Ren, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of setting a maximum processing time that the system will allow as acknowledged by Ren in [0030], which allows for an increase in CPU performance.
Regarding claim 3, Keller, as modified by Millett, Shinkuma, and Ren, discloses:
The control device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the control device to execute a second estimation process of estimating at least one of the position and the orientation of the movable body (see claim 1, in particular [0003], [0007], and [0024-25] where a control unit determines information in a position and orientation data set in order to execute control over a motor vehicle and a second estimation of the position and orientation of a movable body is construed as a different time point as the vehicle travels (i.e., 2nd estimation occurring 10 seconds after the first)), using a single piece of the three-dimensional point cloud data (see claim 1 regarding use of 3D cloud point data), when the allowable processing time is shorter than the time reference value (see claim 2 regarding to allowable processing time).
Regarding claim 5, Keller, as modified by Millett, Shinkuma, and Ren, discloses:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the control device to select and execute one of the first estimation process and a second estimation process of estimating at least one of the position and the orientation of the movable body, using a single piece of the three-dimensional point cloud data, depending on a traveling situation of the movable body (see claims 1-3 regarding the estimation process utilizing a 3D point cloud to estimate the position and orientation of a moving body).
______________________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0260132 A1), hereinafter referred to as Keller, in view of Millett (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0071234 A1), Shinkuma (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0412384 A1), and Xia et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0081001 A1), hereinafter referred to as Xia.
Regarding claim 4, Keller, as modified by Millett and Shinkuma, discloses:
Keller discloses [0005] An autonomous parking function or an autonomous driving
function requires precise contour information with regard to the static surroundings. Millett also teaches in [0047] utilize other means of precise motion tracking. However, the references do not explicitly disclose:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the control device to execute the first estimation process when a required accuracy of the control of the movable body is equal to or higher than an accuracy reference value.
However, Xia teaches in the last sentence of [0035] the autonomous vehicle may fail to plan the driving path of the road ahead due to restrictions on the control accuracy of the autonomous vehicle and the minimum allowable distance from the obstacle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the object detection of Keller, as already modified by the point cloud teachings of Millett and the fixed arrangement of a distance measuring device teachings of Shinkuma, by incorporating the accuracy teachings of Xia, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of setting a minimum accuracy constraint that the system will allow.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Abari et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0133288 A1) is directed towards sensor fusion by operations-control for commanding and controlling autonomous vehicles.
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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665