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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schiffmann (US 2019/0277639 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schiffmann discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a sensor ([0016]); and
a processor ([0018]) configured to:
obtain, while a first vehicle is operating and based on a specified algorithm applied to a virtual box corresponding to a second vehicle ([0023]), a first vector in a plurality of frames that are obtained using the sensor ([0002], [0021]-[0022]; The velocity vector is taken to be the first vector.);
obtain, based on at least one of the first vector or a speed of the first vehicle, a second vector indicating a direction of movement of the second vehicle (The velocity vector necessarily defines a second unit vector pointing in the direction of motion.);
obtain a third vector indicating a heading direction of the virtual box, based on an angle between a straight line, perpendicular to one side of the virtual box, and the second vector (Figure 3, element 74; [0027]: “The processor 50 in this embodiment uses an iterative relaxation approach to determine the pointing angle, which is represented by ψ at 74 in FIG. 3,”; [0035]; The pointing angle here is identified with the heading direction of the instant application.);
determine a reliability range based on a plurality of vectors comprising the third vector, wherein the plurality of vectors are determined in the plurality of frames ([0036]: “The example approach is iterative and includes repeating the steps shown at 84-94 in FIG. 4 when the values of the refined pointing angle and the initial pointing angle have not yet converged. If the difference determined at 96 does not indicate sufficient convergence (e.g., the difference does not satisfy the selected criterion), then the processor 50 resets the initial pointing angle to be the same as the refined pointing angle at 102.” The tolerance of the iteration procedure defines a reliability range); and
adjust, based on the heading direction deviating from the determined reliability range, the heading direction of the virtual box, using at least one of the plurality of vectors ([0037]: “The processor 50 repeats those steps in an iterative fashion until there is sufficient convergence for determining the pointing angle and setting the pointing angle to be the refined pointing angle at 100.” The iterative procedure continues adjusting the heading while it is out of the reliability range and necessarily uses data from multiple frames.).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Schiffmann further discloses wherein the processor is configured to obtain the first vector by:
obtaining the first vector further based on an amount of movement of the second vehicle, wherein the amount of movement is obtained based on a displacement, in the plurality of frames, of a representative point included in the virtual box ([0025] notes that the radar acquires positions of the vehicle. All subsequent derived quantities are therefore obtained based on a displacement.).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Schiffmann further discloses further comprising:
memory ([0018]), wherein the processor is configured to obtain the first vector by:
obtaining the first vector based on applying the specified algorithm to a sampling point of the virtual box included in the plurality of frames ([0013]: “A velocity vector of the centroid 32 of the vehicle 22 is situated at a heading angle 39 under the conditions shown in FIG. 1.”); and
storing the obtained first vector in the memory ([0018]: “the memory 52 at least temporarily contains information regarding various features or characteristics of a tracked object to facilitate the processor 50 making desired determinations regarding the pointing angle of such an object.”).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Schiffmann further discloses comprising:
Memory ([0018]), wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on at least one of an amount of change along an x-axis of the virtual box or an amount of change along a y-axis of the virtual box, directivity indicated by the virtual box ([0035]: “ sufficient convergence exists for the refined pointing angle to be considered the body orientation angle or pointing angle ψ of the vehicle 22”; [0030]-[0035] and associated equations discloses that the pointing angle is ultimately derived from x- and y-components of the velocity which represent changes along the x- and y-axis of the vehicle’s virtual box.); and
classify, based on the determined directivity, and store the obtained first vector in a specified area of the memory ([0018]: “the memory 52 at least temporarily contains information regarding various features or characteristics of a tracked object to facilitate the processor 50 making desired determinations regarding the pointing angle of such an object.”).
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Schiffmann further discloses memory storing the plurality of vectors ([0018]: “the memory 52 at least temporarily contains information regarding various features or characteristics of a tracked object to facilitate the processor 50 making desired determinations regarding the pointing angle of such an object.”), wherein the processor is further configured to excluding the adjusted heading direction of the virtual box from the plurality of vectors ([0037]: “ If the difference determined at 96 does not indicate sufficient convergence (e.g., the difference does not satisfy the selected criterion), then the processor 50 resets the initial pointing angle to be the same as the refined pointing angle at 102.” The preponderance of evidence here suggests that these adjusted pointing angle values which do not properly converge are discarded and not stored in memory.).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Schiffmann further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine the heading direction of the virtual box by determining a side of the virtual box having, among sides of the virtual box, a smallest angle between the straight line, perpendicular to the side of the virtual box, and the second vector (Figure 3A shows that the velocity/unit direction vector have been chosen to be referenced against the side that results in the smallest angle between the vector and the normal line.).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Schiffmann further discloses memory ([0018]), wherein the processor is further configured to:
sequentially store the first vector in one of a plurality of areas formed in the memory ([0018]: “In some example embodiments, the memory 52 at least temporarily contains information regarding various features or characteristics of a tracked object to facilitate the processor 50 making desired determinations regarding the pointing angle of such an object.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Schiffmann discloses a vehicle control method comprising:
obtaining, while a first vehicle is operating and based on a specified algorithm applied to a virtual box corresponding to a second vehicle ([0023]), a first vector in a plurality of frames that are obtained using the sensor ([0002], [0021]-[0022]; The velocity vector is taken to be the first vector.);
obtaining, based on at least one of the first vector or a speed of the first vehicle, a second vector indicating a direction of movement of the second vehicle (The velocity vector necessarily defines a second unit vector pointing in the direction of motion.);
obtaining a third vector indicating a heading direction of the virtual box, based on an angle between a straight line, perpendicular to one side of the virtual box, and the second vector (Figure 3, element 74; [0027]: “The processor 50 in this embodiment uses an iterative relaxation approach to determine the pointing angle, which is represented by ψ at 74 in FIG. 3,”; [0035]; The pointing angle here is identified with the heading direction of the instant application.);
determining a reliability range based on a plurality of vectors comprising the third vector, wherein the plurality of vectors are determined in the plurality of frames ([0036]: “The example approach is iterative and includes repeating the steps shown at 84-94 in FIG. 4 when the values of the refined pointing angle and the initial pointing angle have not yet converged. If the difference determined at 96 does not indicate sufficient convergence (e.g., the difference does not satisfy the selected criterion), then the processor 50 resets the initial pointing angle to be the same as the refined pointing angle at 102.” The tolerance of the iteration procedure defines a reliability range); and
adjusting, based on the heading direction deviating from the determined reliability range, the heading direction of the virtual box, using at least one of the plurality of vectors ([0037]: “The processor 50 repeats those steps in an iterative fashion until there is sufficient convergence for determining the pointing angle and setting the pointing angle to be the refined pointing angle at 100.” The iterative procedure continues adjusting the heading while it is out of the reliability range and necessarily uses data from multiple frames.).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Schiffmann further discloses wherein the obtaining of the first vector comprises:
obtaining the first vector further based on an amount of movement of the second vehicle, wherein the amount of movement is obtained based on a displacement, in the plurality of frames, of a representative point included in the virtual box ([0025] notes that the radar acquires positions of the vehicle. All subsequent derived quantities are therefore obtained based on a displacement.).
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Schiffmann further discloses comprising:
memory ([0018]), wherein the processor is configured to obtain the first vector by:
obtaining the first vector based on applying the specified algorithm to a sampling point of the virtual box included in the plurality of frames ([0013]: “A velocity vector of the centroid 32 of the vehicle 22 is situated at a heading angle 39 under the conditions shown in FIG. 1.”); and
storing the obtained first vector in the memory ([0018]: “the memory 52 at least temporarily contains information regarding various features or characteristics of a tracked object to facilitate the processor 50 making desired determinations regarding the pointing angle of such an object.”).
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Schiffmann further discloses comprising:
Memory ([0018]), wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on at least one of an amount of change along an x-axis of the virtual box or an amount of change along a y-axis of the virtual box, directivity indicated by the virtual box ([0035]: “ sufficient convergence exists for the refined pointing angle to be considered the body orientation angle or pointing angle ψ of the vehicle 22”; [0030]-[0035] and associated equations discloses that the pointing angle is ultimately derived from x- and y-components of the velocity which represent changes along the x- and y-axis of the vehicle’s virtual box.); and
classify, based on the determined directivity, and store the obtained first vector in a specified area of the memory ([0018]: “the memory 52 at least temporarily contains information regarding various features or characteristics of a tracked object to facilitate the processor 50 making desired determinations regarding the pointing angle of such an object.”).
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Schiffmann further discloses excluding the adjusted heading direction of the virtual box from being stored in memory ([0037]: “ If the difference determined at 96 does not indicate sufficient convergence (e.g., the difference does not satisfy the selected criterion), then the processor 50 resets the initial pointing angle to be the same as the refined pointing angle at 102.” The preponderance of evidence here suggests that these adjusted pointing angle values which do not properly converge are discarded and not stored in memory.).
Regarding Claim 19, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Schiffmann further discloses determining the heading direction of the virtual box by determining a side of the virtual box having, among sides of the virtual box, a smallest angle between the straight line, perpendicular to the side of the virtual box, and the second vector (Figure 3A shows that the velocity/unit direction vector have been chosen to be referenced against the side that results in the smallest angle between the vector and the normal line.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann in view of Chino (US 2019/0285663 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Schiffmann further discloses wherein the processor is configured further to:
adjust the heading direction of the virtual box ([0034]-[0035] disclose an iterative method of adjusting the pointing angle or heading),
Schiffmann does not teach and Chino does teach using an average of the at least one of the plurality of vectors ([0103] and [0104]; Chino discloses using average velocity quantities for calculations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schiffmann with the teaching of Chino to use average quantities of velocity values. Chino notes in [0103] that, for example, “an average value of two pieces of Y-axis angular velocity data from the Y-axis angular velocity sensor devices is obtained, and final Y-axis angular velocity data is obtained, more highly accurate Y-axis angular velocity data can be obtained.” High accuracy is extremely important in safety-critical situations such as vehicle position and direction calculations.
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Schiffmann further discloses wherein the processor is configured further to:
adjust the heading direction of the virtual box ([0034]-[0035] disclose an iterative method of adjusting the pointing angle or heading),
Schiffmann does not teach and Chino does teach using an average of the at least one of the plurality of vectors ([0103] and [0104]; Chino discloses using average velocity quantities for calculations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schiffmann with the teaching of Chino to use average quantities of velocity values. Chino notes in [0103] that, for example, “an average value of two pieces of Y-axis angular velocity data from the Y-axis angular velocity sensor devices is obtained, and final Y-axis angular velocity data is obtained, more highly accurate Y-axis angular velocity data can be obtained.” High accuracy is extremely important in safety-critical situations such as vehicle position and direction calculations.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann in view of Parasuram (US 2023/0133419 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Schiffmann does not teach and Parasuram does teach to change the determined reliability range, based on at least one of a speed of the second vehicle or a size of the virtual box ([0055]: “when the target agent is an active emergency vehicle, as part of processing the features, the system can modify uncertainty-based features such as the standard deviations of velocity, heading, etc. to increase the uncertainty represented by the features. For example, the system can increase the standard deviation of such a feature by a configured amount, a configured percentage or by applying a configured function to the feature.”; The emergency vehicle is noted as being active and thus in motion, as opposed to being stationary, the standard deviation is therefore changed based on the speed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schiffmann with the teaching of Parasuram to adjust the reliability range of a speed based on vehicle speed. Parasuram notes in [0006] that “ the techniques described below can be used to predict driving maneuvers of an active emergency vehicle that are uncommon among agents that are not active emergency vehicles.” Thus, distinguishing between a moving and stationary emergency vehicle for example, can lead to improved safety.
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Schiffmann does not teach and Parasuram does teach changing the determined reliability range, based on at least one of a speed of the second vehicle or a size of the virtual box ([0055]: “when the target agent is an active emergency vehicle, as part of processing the features, the system can modify uncertainty-based features such as the standard deviations of velocity, heading, etc. to increase the uncertainty represented by the features. For example, the system can increase the standard deviation of such a feature by a configured amount, a configured percentage or by applying a configured function to the feature.”; The emergency vehicle is noted as being active and thus in motion, as opposed to being stationary, the standard deviation is therefore changed based on the speed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schiffmann with the teaching of Parasuram to adjust the reliability range of a heading based on vehicle speed. Parasuram notes in [0006] that “ the techniques described below can be used to predict driving maneuvers of an active emergency vehicle that are uncommon among agents that are not active emergency vehicles.” Thus, distinguishing between a moving and stationary emergency vehicle for example, can lead to improved safety.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann in view of Phuyal (US 2016/0258764 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Schiffmann further discloses sequentially storing the first vector in one of a plurality of areas formed in memory ([0018]: “the memory 52 at least temporarily contains information regarding various features or characteristics of a tracked object to facilitate the processor 50 making desired determinations regarding the pointing angle of such an object.”).
Schiffmann does not teach and Phuyal does teach determining the reliability range by determining the reliability range based on a measure of dispersion indicated by the plurality of vectors ([0035]: “The statistical parameter may be a standard deviation, a variance, or a moving average of the heading change values or other the original heading values.”) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schiffmann with the teaching of Phuyal to calculated the reliability range based on a dispersion value, in this case, a standard deviation. Statistical measures of measurement uncertainties are well-known in the art and a skilled worker would be able to implement the calculation of such a measure with a predictable result.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffmann in view Phuyal and further in view of Chino.
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Schiffmann discloses to adjust the heading direction of the virtual box by adjusting the heading direction of the virtual box.
Schiffmann does not teach and Phuyal does teach to determine the reliability range by determining the reliability range based on a measure of dispersion indicated by the plurality of vectors ([0035]: “The statistical parameter may be a standard deviation, a variance, or a moving average of the heading change values or other the original heading values.”) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schiffmann with the teaching of Phuyal to calculated the reliability range based on a dispersion value, in this case, a standard deviation. Statistical measures of measurement uncertainties are well-known in the art and a skilled worker would be able to implement the calculation of such a measure with a predictable result.
Making the adjustment based on an average, in the measure of dispersion, of the at least one of the plurality of vectors in the reliability range ([0103] and [0104]; Chino discloses using average velocity quantities for calculations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schiffmann with the teaching of Chino to use average quantities of velocity values. Chino notes in [0103] that, for example, “an average value of two pieces of Y-axis angular velocity data from the Y-axis angular velocity sensor devices is obtained, and final Y-axis angular velocity data is obtained, more highly accurate Y-axis angular velocity data can be obtained.” High accuracy is extremely important in safety-critical situations such as vehicle position and direction calculations.
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 10, Schiffmann does not teach and Chino does teach obtain a fourth vector corresponding to the average of the at least one of the plurality of vectors; and obtain, based on an angle between the straight line and the fourth vector, a fifth vector including the heading direction of the virtual box and adjust the heading direction of the virtual box ([0103] and [0104]; Chino discloses using average velocity quantities for calculations.; Thus incorporating the teaching of Chino into the device of Schiffmann necessitates the calculations of average version of the second and third vectors, which correspond to the fourth and fifth vectors of the instant application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schiffmann with the teaching of Chino to use average quantities of velocity values. Chino notes in [0103] that, for example, “an average value of two pieces of Y-axis angular velocity data from the Y-axis angular velocity sensor devices is obtained, and final Y-axis angular velocity data is obtained, more highly accurate Y-axis angular velocity data can be obtained.” High accuracy is extremely important in safety-critical situations such as vehicle position and direction calculations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights