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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification alternates between "object candidate track" and "LIDAR track" when referring to the same pre-fusion LiDAR-derived track in different paragraphs [0062–0064]. Only "object track" and "partial track" appear in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The target vehicle is referred to inconsistently as "target vehicle Vtg" and "target vehicle Vth" (see [0103]: "lower the reflectance of the target vehicle Vth is"); "Vth" appears to be a typographical error for "Vtg" and should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 8 is objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84(p)(5) because the drawing includes coordinate notation “(c1, c2)” for the center point of LT1, while the description refers to the coordinates of the center point of LT1 as “(x0, y0)” and uses x0/y0 in Equation 3. The reference/coordinate notation in the drawing and description is inconsistent. Corrected drawings and/or corresponding amendments to the specification are required.
FIG. 3 is objected to because reference character 110 is labeled as “reference sensor 110” whereas the specification otherwise identifies reference character 110 as “camera 110”. Correction is required for consistency.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 14 recite “wherein the object is in the reference track”. This phrase is grammatically imprecise because the object itself is not physically “in” a reference track. A physical object is not literally “in” a reference track, which is an information/ data representation. The intended meaning is probably that the reference track corresponds to, represents, or indicates the object. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the term "partial track" is a coined term defined only in [0064] as "a track capable of being estimated as an object track among fragmented LIDAR tracks". While a definition exists, the written description does not clearly distinguish when a fragmented LiDAR cluster qualifies as a "partial track" versus when it is simply noise or an unrelated object. The specification provides the threshold distance gating mechanism but never defines the outer boundary of what constitutes a "track" (fragmented or otherwise) before the gating test is applied. This creates a written description gap for the full scope of "partial track" as claimed.
Claims 8-9, and 18-19 recite increasing the threshold distance as reflectance decreases or weather deteriorates. The specification [0102–0104] states only that the threshold "may be set to be greater" under these conditions; no formula, lookup table, proportional relationship, or range is disclosed. The written description does not demonstrate possession of the full scope of an adaptive threshold that varies continuously (or even discretely) with reflectance or weather severity. A skilled artisan cannot implement the full scope of claims 8 and 9, an adaptive threshold responsive to reflectance and weather, without undue experimentation given the absence of any disclosed mapping function, calibration procedure, or parameter range.
Claim 11 broadly recites " a sensor other than a light imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor" for generating the reference track. The specification discloses only the camera 110 as the reference track source [0059–0060], [0080]. While radar [0049] and ultrasonic sensors [0051] are disclosed as part of the sensor device generally, the specification does NOT describe generating a reference track using radar, ultrasonic, or infrared sensors. The claimed scope of "sensor other than LIDAR" is therefore broader than what is actually described, raising a written description issue for all non-camera/ non-LIDAR sensor embodiments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 11 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.
Claim limitation “fusing the object track and the reference track” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses the fusion step only at [0066] with the statement that the processor "may generate a final track by fusing or merging the object track and the reference track". No specific fusion methodology (filtering, weighted averaging, interpolation, or any other algorithm) is disclosed. The written description must describe the invention with sufficient particularity to show the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed fusion step. A bare functional statement does not satisfy the written description requirement for a claimed computational function per Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. 2010). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5 and 15 recite “a side surface” again; however, claim 5 depends from claim 4, and claim 15 depends from claim 14. Accordingly, it is unclear that they are the same side surface or another side surface.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Claim 20 recites “the vehicle” in the limitations “controlling the vehicle” and “outside the vehicle”; however, claim 20 depends from claim 11, and claim 11 does not provide antecedent basis for “the vehicle”. Accordingly, it is unclear what vehicle is being controlled and what vehicle is used as the reference for determining that the object is outside the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 already recites “determining whether the shortest distance between the first reference line and center point of the track is within the threshold distance”. Claim 16 then recites “determining of the track as the partial track comprises comparing the shortest distance between the center point of the track and the first reference line with the threshold distance.”. That appears largely duplicative and not further limit claim 14. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 10–11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yun (Yun et al, US 2023/0090259 A1, 03/23/2023), as provided by Applicants' disclosure filed on 09/19/2025 (Patent Family KR 10-2023-0042904).
Regarding claim 1, Yun teaches an apparatus comprising:
a camera configured to obtain image data;
a sensor configured to obtain a set of points; and
a processor,
( [0054-0055], [0063-0064], [0068], [Fig. 1 & 4]: Yun teaches a computer system coupled in the vehicle includes a memory and a processor. The sensing device 100 may include a variety of sensors such as an ultrasonic sensor, a radar device, a camera, a laser scanner, a lidar device, a near vehicle detection (NVD) device, etc. Yun further teaches that sensor data includes detection point data obtained from each sensor, and that the predicted track generation unit processes detection points obtained from each sensor to detect an object and predict track information. )
wherein the processor is configured to:
detect an object outside a vehicle;
( [Fig 1], [0062], [0064]: a sensing device 100 for detecting an object present outside the vehicle and the sensor information fusion device 200 for recognizing the object by fusing sensor information obtained from the sensing device 100. The sensor information fusion device 200 detects objects by processing detection points input from sensors of the sensing device 100. )
determine a track as a partial track, based on a determination that the track is within a threshold distance from a reference track generated based on the image data, wherein the track is generated based on information obtained by the sensor;
( [0074], [Fig. 2], [0080-0081], [0083-0084]: The reference track may be a track generated by any one of a plurality of sensors, and a method of selecting a sensor of the reference track may be preset. The plurality of sensors explicitly includes the RSIR camera unit 140, and the reference track may be selected in the order of SF, lidar, NVD, and RSIR. Yun teaches selecting target tracks having distances from a reference track within a predetermined distance from among tracks obtained by a plurality of sensors. Yun further teaches setting a gate [threshold distance] based on the reference track and selecting a sensor track as a target track when the sensor track is located within the gate based on the reference track. Yun teaches that the target track / a reference point of a predicted track [partial track] is generated from information obtained by a sensor, including detection points from the sensor. )
determine an object track including the partial track; and
( [0075], [Fig. 2]: Yun teaches that the association unit generates an associated track from one of the tracks generated by the sensors. Yun further teaches selecting a target track associated with the reference track based on distance and overlapping area, and selecting the sensor track located within the gate as a target track to be used with the reference track. The selected/ associated target track corresponds to the claimed object track including the partial track. )
generate, by fusing the object track and the reference track, a final track indicating a location of the object; and
( [0076-0078], [Fig. 2]: Yun teaches selecting a target fusion track to be fused with the reference track from among selected target tracks according to distances and overlapping areas between the selected target tracks and the reference track. Yun further teaches outputting a sensor fusion track when the selected target/fusion track and the reference track are fused. The sensor fusion track corresponds to the claimed final track indicating a location of the object. )
output a signal indicating the final track.
( [0081], [Fig. 2]: "the sensor information fusion device 200 may compare tracks obtained from the lidar unit 120, the NVD unit 130, and the RSIR 140 with a reference track, select a sensor track most likely to be the same object as the reference track as an associated sensor track, and output a fusion sensor track." )
Although different embodiments of Yun have been referred to, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yun by combining Yun's similar embodiments in order to not limit the embodiments to themselves but include other evident combinations and extensions thereof (see Yun's [0074]: 'The reference track may be a track generated by any one of a plurality of sensors,' and [0080] disclosing camera (RSIR) as one of the explicitly enumerated plurality of sensors). Specifically, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Yun's sensor fusion framework by selecting camera image data as the specific source for generating the reference track, as Yun itself explicitly contemplates and discloses camera as a valid reference track source among its enumerated sensor options. Selecting camera image data as the reference track source is a routine design choice within Yun's own explicitly disclosed framework, requiring no more than ordinary skill in the art, and would predictably yield the claimed arrangement of generating a reference track based on image data for use in threshold distance gating of sensor-derived tracks.
Regarding claim 10, Yun teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to control the vehicle based on the signal indicating the final track.
( [0062], [0064]: the vehicle may include a sensing device 100 for detecting an object present outside the vehicle and the sensor information fusion device 200 for recognizing the object by fusing sensor information obtained from the sensing device 100". "The sensor information fusion device 200 may detect objects by processing detection points input from sensors of the sensing device 100 and predict track information on the basis of the detected objects". [0003]: The core of technical development of autonomous vehicle driving and advanced driver assistance systems ADAS technology is technology for obtaining accurate and reliable information about surrounding environments [using] sensor information fusion technology... to recognize a situation around a host vehicle. It is inherent and well known in the art that the explicit purpose of outputting ADAS fusion track information is to control the driving/operation of the autonomous vehicle. Yun explicitly indicate vehicle control as the intended downstream application of the fusion track output. )
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the rationale provided in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claims 1 and 10 corresponds to the methods of claims 11 and 20, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claims are all rejected.
Claims 2–3 and 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Rajan (Rajan et al, US 2023/0334673 A1, filed 03/03/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Yun teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose where Rajan teaches wherein the reference track is obtained by expressing the object in a top-view in a coordinate system, wherein the object is detected from the image data.
( [0005-0007], [0011-0014], [Figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3A, 6, 9-10]: Rajan teaches receiving a plurality of 2D images of an environment surrounding a vehicle via a 2D camera setup and receiving a plurality of 3D point clouds of the environment via LiDAR. Rajan teaches converting each 3D point cloud to corresponding 2D Bird’s Eye View (BEV) [top-view in a coordinate system] images, processing the 2D camera images using a 2D camera tracker to detect objects and generate camera track IDs, processing the 2D-BEV images using a 2D-BEV tracker to detect BEV objects and generate BEV tracker IDs, and generating an integrated tracker by determining correspondence between fused LiDAR objects and 2D camera objects. Rajan further teaches LiDAR-camera association using a camera calibration matrix and closest Euclidean matching. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yun’s reference-track generation so that the object detected from image data is expressed in a top-view/ BEV coordinate system, as taught by Rajan, because Yun already teaches generating and associating sensor tracks from plural vehicle sensors, while Rajan teaches a known way to place camera-detected objects and LiDAR/ BEV objects into a common coordinate tracking framework for correspondence determination. The modification would have predictably improved Yun’s sensor-track association by enabling the camera-based reference track and LiDAR-based track to be compared in the same top-view coordinate frame.
Regarding claim 3, Yun teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose where Rajan teaches wherein the track is expressed in a top-view in a coordinate system based on a cluster state of the set of points.
( [0005]-[0014], [Figs. 2A-2B, 3A, 6-7]: Rajan teaches receiving LiDAR 3D point clouds, converting the 3D point clouds into corresponding 2D-BEV images, processing the 2D-BEV images using a 2D-BEV tracker to detect objects and generate tracker IDs, processing the 3D point clouds using a 3D LiDAR detector, and determining correspondence between 2D-BEV objects and 3D LiDAR objects to generate a fused LiDAR tracker. Rajan further teaches selecting LiDAR points using density-based spatial clustering with noise and applying a dominant-cluster selection approach to select the best cluster, expressing a LiDAR/ point-based track in a top-view/BEV coordinate system based on a cluster state of the set of LiDAR 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 Yun’s sensor-generated target/partial track so that the track is expressed in a top-view/BEV coordinate system based on a cluster state of the set of LiDAR points, as taught by Rajan, because Yun teaches forming tracks from sensor detection points and using those tracks in gated association/fusion, while Rajan teaches using LiDAR point clustering and BEV object tracking to generate LiDAR object tracks. The modification would have predictably provided Yun’s sensor-fusion system with a known LiDAR cluster-based BEV track suitable for comparison with Yun’s reference track.
Regarding claims 12–13, the rationale provided in the rejection of claims 2–3 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claims 2–3 corresponds to the methods of claims 12–13, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claims are all rejected.
Claims 4–7 and 14–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Kim (Kim et al, US 2022/0206137 A1, 2022).
Regarding claim 4, Yun teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
Yun teaches reference-track/ target-track association using distance gates, midpoint distances, and overlap areas ( [0062], [0071], [0077-0078], [0084], [0095-0108], [0113-0115], [Figs. 5-10] ), but fails to expressly disclose where Kim teaches:
determine a first reference line indicating a side surface of the object, wherein the object is in the reference track; and
determine whether the shortest distance between the first reference line and a center point of the track is within the threshold distance.
( [0010-0011], [0028], [0030-0036], [0041-0043], [Figs. 1 and 4-7]: Kim teaches generating a sensor fusion track using a box-shaped LiDAR track because LiDAR track shape information has high accuracy. Kim teaches that a LiDAR track may be represented as a box shape having width, length, heading, vertexes, and a center. Kim further teaches dividing the LiDAR track into a plurality of areas using line segments connecting the center of the LiDAR track to four vertexes of the LiDAR track. Kim identifies four vertexes P1 to P4, a reference axis formed by connecting a midpoint between first and second vertexes to a midpoint between third and fourth vertexes, and a center of the LiDAR track. Kim also teaches using line segments connecting neighboring vertexes of the LiDAR track, including line segments corresponding to width and length sides of the box-shaped LiDAR track. Therefore, determining reference/ side lines corresponding to side surfaces of an object track and determining geometric relationships between such side lines and the center point of a track for sensor-fusion track generation. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yun’s reference-track/ target-track association process to use Kim’s box-shaped track geometry, including side-surface line segments and a center point of the LiDAR track, when evaluating whether a sensor track should be associated with the reference track. Yun already teaches selecting a sensor track for association/ fusion based on a distance gate and overlap between a reference track and target tracks. Kim teaches that LiDAR track shape information has high accuracy and that a box-shaped LiDAR track may be defined using vertexes, side line segments, a reference axis, and a center point to improve sensor-fusion track shape accuracy. Therefore, applying Kim’s side-line/ center-point box geometry to Yun’s distance-gated association would have been a predictable improvement to determine whether a LiDAR/ point-based track corresponds to the same object represented by the reference track, thereby improving the geometric accuracy and reliability of Yun’s sensor-fusion track.
Regarding claim 5, Yun [as modified by Kim] teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine, as the first reference line, a line segment indicating a side surface, which is closer to the vehicle, chosen from among a plurality of side surfaces of the object.
( [0010-0011], [0028], [0030-0036], [0041-0043], [Figs. 1 and 4-7]: Kim further teaches determining a particular area/ side of the LiDAR track based on the direction of the absolute velocity vector and generating a new box-shaped LiDAR track using the determined area. Accordingly, Kim teaches selecting one of a plurality of side-surface line segments of a box-shaped object/ track, including the side line segment relevant to the vehicle-side sensor-fusion relationship, as the first reference line. )
Regarding claim 6, Yun [as modified by Kim] teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine, as the first reference line, a straight line connecting one end of a front bumper of the object and one end of a rear bumper of the object; and
( [0031-0036], [0041-0043], [Figs. 4-6]: Kim teaches representing the LiDAR track as a box-shaped track having first to fourth vertexes P1 to P4. Kim teaches that the areas of the LiDAR track are defined between neighboring vertexes, and that line segments connecting neighboring vertexes form sides of the box-shaped LiDAR track. Kim further teaches using the width, length, heading angle, and existing point of the box-shaped LiDAR track, including line segments extending between neighboring vertexes. The line segments extending in the longitudinal/ length direction of the box-shaped LiDAR track correspond to straight side lines connecting one end of a front side/ bumper of the object and one end of a rear side/ bumper of the object. )
compare the shortest distance between the center point of the track and the first reference line with the threshold distance.
( Yun, [0062], [0071], [0077-0078], [0084], [0095-0108], [0113-0115], [Figs. 5-10]; Kim, [0031-0036], [0041-0043], [Figs. 4-6]: Yun teaches setting a gate based on a reference track, determining whether sensor tracks are located within the gate, and selecting target tracks based on distances compared from the reference track within a predetermined distance. Yun further teaches calculating distances and overlap between reference and target tracks for association/ fusion. Kim teaches a box-shaped LiDAR track having a center point and side line segments defined by neighboring vertexes. Therefore, Yun [as modified by Kim] teaches comparing a distance between the center point of the LiDAR/ target track and the selected side/ reference line with the threshold distance used for track association. )
Regarding claim 7, Yun [as modified by Kim] teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to:
include the track in the object track based on a determination that the center point of the track is located between a second reference line indicating a front side of the object and a third reference line indicating a rear side of the object.
( Yun, [0062], [0071], [0077-0078], [0084], [0113-0115], [Figs. 5-10]; Kim, [0031-0036], [0041-0043], [Figs. 4-6]: Yun teaches selecting a sensor/ target track as an association target when the sensor track is located within a gate based on the reference track, and using the selected track for association/ fusion with the reference track. Kim teaches a box-shaped LiDAR track having first to fourth vertexes P1 to P4, a center point, and line segments connecting neighboring vertexes. Kim teaches that the first area is between the first and second vertexes, the third area is between the third and fourth vertexes, and that the box-shaped LiDAR track includes width-side line segments and length-side line segments. The line segment between first and second vertexes corresponds to a front-side reference line, and the line segment between third and fourth vertexes corresponds to a rear-side reference line. Accordingly, Yun [as modified by Kim] teaches including the LiDAR/ target track in the object track when the center point of the track is located within the longitudinal bounds between front and rear side reference lines of the object. )
Regarding claims 14–17, the rationale provided in the rejection of claims 4–7 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claims 4–7 corresponds to the methods of claims 14–17, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claims are all rejected.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Wei (Wei et al, US 2018/0316873 A1, 2018).
Regarding claim 8, Yun teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
Yun teaches a threshold distance/ gate for associating a sensor track with a reference track, but fails to expressly disclose varying that threshold distance based on object reflectance where Wei teaches:
increase the threshold distance as reflectance of the object decreases.
( [0003], [0010-0023], [Figs. 1-2]: Wei teaches a data-fusion system for an automated vehicle that fuses camera data and LiDAR data. Wei teaches that the camera renders an image of an object proximate to a host vehicle, the LiDAR detects a distance and a direction to the object based on a reflected signal, and a controller determines a reflectivity-characteristic of the object based on the image and the reflected signal. Wei teaches that LiDAR has difficulty detecting black/ non-reflective and chrome/ highly reflective objects because the reflected signal is weak or non-existent. Wei further teaches determining a reflection fraction of light energy reflected by the object toward the LiDAR and determining that the object is difficult for the LiDAR to detect when the reflection fraction is less than a fraction threshold. Wei teaches dynamically adjusting a LiDAR detection characteristic, including increasing detector gain and/or decreasing a detection threshold, when the reflection fraction is less than the fraction threshold, so that the LiDAR can better detect the distance and direction to the object. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yun’s predetermined distance/ gate used for associating a sensor track with a reference track such that the threshold distance is increased as reflectance of the object decreases, in view of Wei. Yun teaches using a distance gate/ threshold to decide whether a sensor track corresponds to a reference track. Wei teaches that low reflectance/ low reflection fraction causes weak or missing LiDAR returns and makes it difficult for LiDAR to detect object distance and direction, and further teaches adjusting LiDAR detection characteristics to compensate for the degraded reflectance condition. Because lower reflectance predictably increases uncertainty in the completeness and positional reliability of a LiDAR-derived track, increasing Yun’s association threshold distance as reflectance decreases would have been a predictable way to avoid failing to associate a valid but degraded LiDAR track with the reference track, while maintaining Yun’s sensor-fusion objective of reliably associating tracks corresponding to the same object.
Regarding claim 18, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claim 8 corresponds to the methods of claim 18, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claim is rejected.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Adam (Adam et al, US 2021/0229681 A1, 2021).
Regarding claim 9, Yun teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
Yun teaches a threshold distance/ gate for associating a sensor track with a reference track, but fails to expressly disclose varying that threshold distance based on a weather state where Adam teaches:
increase the threshold distance as a weather state in an area comprising the vehicle, deteriorates.
( [0001-0017], [0026], [0030], [0036], [0050-0066]: Adam teaches an autonomous vehicle object tracking system using multiple sensors including LiDAR, radar, ultrasonic sensors, and cameras. Adam teaches that object tracking performance degrades when environmental conditions such as snow, rain, fog, or rapidly changing conditions occur due to poor sensor and/or recognition performance. Adam further teaches determining a type of environmental condition associated with the autonomous vehicle, including weather conditions such as rain, snow, fog, and sun glare, and adjusting sensor weights, grouping weights, tracking weights, Kalman filter coefficients, covariance/ position-error weights, and/or sensor-data rejection criteria based on the type of environmental condition. Adam further teaches that the adjusted weights and coefficients are used for fusing sensor data, tracking an object, and controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the tracked object, thereby increasing tracking/ fusion tolerance or uncertainty compensation as the weather state deteriorates. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yun’s predetermined distance/ gate used for associating a sensor track with a reference track such that the threshold distance is increased as a weather state in an area comprising the vehicle deteriorates, in view of Adam. Yun teaches using a distance gate/ threshold to determine whether a sensor track corresponds to a reference track. Adam teaches that adverse environmental/weather conditions, including rain, snow, fog, and sun glare, degrade object tracking and sensor/ recognition performance, and teaches adjusting fusion weights, tracking weights, Kalman coefficients, covariance/position-error weights, and sensor-data acceptance based on the environmental condition. Because deteriorated weather predictably increases uncertainty in sensor-derived object tracks, increasing Yun’s association threshold distance under such conditions would have been a predictable way to maintain association of valid sensor tracks with the reference track and improve object tracking reliability in the same vehicle sensor-fusion environment.
Regarding claim 19, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claim 9 corresponds to the methods of claim 19, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claim is rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEN KUDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
KEN KUDO
Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/KEN KUDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights