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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 recites “corresponding a second external vehicle” this should be corrected to read “corresponding to a second external vehicle”
Claim 1, line 8 recites “information that adjusting” this should be corrected to read “information that adjusts”
Claim 1, lines 7-8 recite “virtual track information.” It is unclear what this virtual track information is and how it differs from the “track information” recited in line 7 of Claim 1. The specification does not provide any details about what the virtual track information is.
Claim 1, lines 7-8 recite “obtain virtual track information that adjusting at least part of information…” It is unclear how the virtual track information can “adjust” information about the identified virtual box. As best understood by the examiner and in light of the disclosure, this limitation is being interpreted as the virtual track information comprising information used to adjust the virtual box.
Claim 1, lines 6-7 recite “a second external vehicle” while lines 10, 13, 14-15, and 18-19 recite “the second outside vehicle.” It is unclear if “the second outside vehicle” corresponds to “a second external vehicle.” The phrase “the second outside vehicle” only appears one time in the disclosure of the instant application: [00182] and seems to be referring to the second external vehicle mentioned at the beginning of the same paragraph. For clarity purposes, the examiner will read each iteration of “the second outside vehicle” as being “the second external vehicle.” Please note that all dependent claims will be interpreted in the same way.
Claim 1, lines 13-14 recite “the first time point.” This phrase lacks antecedent basis and should be corrected to read “a first time point.”
Claim 1, line 15 recites “the moving direction.” This phrase lacks antecedent basis and should be corrected to read “a moving state.”
Claim 1, line 16 recites “the first heading direction.” This phrase lacks antecedent basis and should be corrected to read “a first heading direction.”
Claim 2 recites “the LiDAR” in lines 8-9. This term lacks antecedent basis and should be corrected to read “a LiDAR.” Also, the first recitation of the term “LiDAR” should further include the definition of the acronym (e.g., light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor as described in [0002]).
Claim 9 recites “Select” in line 9, please correct this to read “select.”
Claim 14 recites “virtual track information.” It is unclear what this virtual track information is and how it differs from the “track information” recited in line 7 of Claim 1. The specification does not provide any details about what the virtual track information is.
Claim 14 recites “based on that track information representing the second external vehicle does not meet reference reliability” it is unclear what “that track information” is referring to especially since this is the first recitation of any track information in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0036] and [0037] comprise identical descriptions of FIG. 10 and 11, respectively. From these descriptions, it is unclear how FIG. 10 and 11 are different.
[0202] recites a spelling error: the word “tacked” should be corrected to read “tracked”
[0061] introduces the term “virtual track information” however the disclosure does not provide any details about what the virtual track information is.
The disclosure refers to a “reference reliability” and the determination of whether the track information does or does not meet the reference reliability (see at least [00107]). However, the disclosure does not provide a standard to determine what is considered reliable and further does not define what the reference reliability actually is.
The disclosure, more specifically [0074] and [00190], recite “the vehicle control method may include storing the virtual track information in the memory, based on that the first scatter plot is less than a reference scatter plot and that the second scatter plot is greater than or equal to the reference scatter plot.” This statement is unclear. It is unclear how a scatter plot can be determined to be less than a reference scatter plot. The words "less" and “greater” are too vague in this context. A scatter plot itself is a visualization of data points, and it's unclear what specific characteristic is being compared or measured. That is, there is no specification of what quantitative aspect of the first scatter plot is "less than" and what quantitative aspect of the second scatter plot is “greater than or equal to” the reference scatter plot. Further, the disclosure does not explain what the reference plot actually is. Is it a straight line? Is it a previously determined scatter plot? The specification does not provide a clear scope or indication.
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 1-22 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.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite the limitation “virtual track information” which does not have sufficient disclosure in the specification to explain what said virtual track information actually is or how this “virtual track information” differs from the “track information” of Claim 1. Claims dependent on claims 1 and 14 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “obtain virtual track information that adjusting at least part of information about the identified virtual box.” This limitation does not have sufficient disclosure in the specification to explain how virtual track information could adjust information about the identified virtual box.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a second outside vehicle” in lines 6-7. It is unclear if this is the same “second external vehicle” referred to in claim 1 or if this is a different outside vehicle. For clarity purposes, the examiner is treating this second outside vehicle to be the same as the second external vehicle as referred to in claim 1 which is consistent in light of the specification.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, and 22 recite the limitation “the vehicle.” This term lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if “the vehicle” is referring to the second external vehicle recited in claim 1, the host vehicle recited in claim 1, or a different vehicle. Therefore, the examiner is broadly interpreting “the vehicle” as corresponding to any of the second external vehicle or the host vehicle.
Claims 5 and 7 are unclear. Claim 5 recites that the pieces of the virtual track information are deleted based on the second external vehicle being in the moving state. However, Claim 7 recites that the processor is configured to store the obtained virtual track information in the memory based on the second external vehicle being in the moving state. Therefore, these claims are contradicting each other. It is unclear how these pieces of virtual track information can be both deleted and stored based on the vehicle being in the moving state. Claims 16 and 17 comprise substantially similar language as Claims 5 and 7 therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8 recites “store the virtual track information in the memory, based on the first scatter plot being less than a reference scatter plot and that the second scatter plot being greater than or equal to the reference scatter plot.” This statement is unclear. The words "less" and “greater” are too vague in this context. A scatter plot itself is a visualization of data points, and it's unclear what specific characteristic of the scatter plot is being compared or measured and what qualities of the scatter plot cause it to be considered “less than” or “greater than or equal to” the reference scatter plot. That is, there is no specification of what quantitative aspect of the first scatter plot is "less than" and what quantitative aspect of the second scatter plot is “greater than or equal to” the reference scatter plot. The disclosure of the instant application does not provide any further explanation of what quantitative aspect of the first and second scatter plots is being compared or measured. Further, the disclosure does not define what the reference scatter plot actually is or how it is compared to the first and second scatter plots in order to make the determination of being less than or greater than or equal to the reference scatter plot. Claim 19 comprises substantially similar language as Claim 8 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
The examiner notes that the claims have been interpreted and prior art has been applied as best understood by the examiner in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-11, 16 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sasatani et al. "Sasatani" (US 2024/0153106 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sasatani teaches
An apparatus see at least FIG. 1 and [0030]; object tracking apparatus 1 comprising:
a sensor see at least [0030]; camera 2;
a memory see at least [0030]; main storage device; and
a processor see at least [0030]; calculator PC, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify a virtual box corresponding a second external vehicle from track information see at least FIG. 2; [0030]; [0031] and [0034] where the object detecting unit 4 detects a target object in a plurality of acquired image frames including a second external vehicle (e.g., vehicle 13) which corresponds to detection box information (i.e., virtual box 14b), and obtain virtual track information that adjusting at least part of information about the identified virtual box, based on that track information representing the second outside vehicle does not meet reference reliability see at least FIG. 10 and [0061] where a detection box position correcting unit 9 performs a process of correcting detection box information of a low-reliability detection box having a reliability lower than a reliability of a high-reliability detection box having a reliability higher than a threshold. A trail (i.e., virtual track information) is generated based on the corrected detection box,
output the virtual track information as the track information representing the second outside vehicle at the first time point, based on at least one of whether the second outside vehicle is in the moving state, whether a difference between the first heading direction of the virtual box and a second heading direction of a host vehicle is less than or equal to a specified angle, the type of the second outside vehicle, the number of pieces of virtual track information from a second time point prior to the first time point to the first time point, the pieces of virtual track information being stored in the memory and including the virtual track information, a length of a virtual track path included in the virtual track information, a position of the virtual box included in the virtual track information, or whether the host vehicle makes a lane change, or any combination thereof see at least [0073] & [0078] where the object tracking apparatus 90 includes a detection target moving direction predicting unit that estimates a motion of an object and the trail is output based on the predicted motion of the object.
Regarding claim 3, Sasatani teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the virtual track information is obtained by adjusting at least one of a track path tracking the second external vehicle, a first heading direction of the virtual box, and a position of the virtual box see at least [0031] where a trail of the detection target is generated by correcting detection box information and wherein the detection box position correcting unit 9 has a function of correcting a position of the detection box based on the reliability of the detection box.
Regarding claim 4, Sasatani teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain the virtual track information, based on:
the second external vehicle being in the moving state see at least [0073] & [0078] where the object tracking apparatus 90 includes a detection target moving direction predicting unit that estimates a motion of an object and the trail is output based on the predicted motion of the object, the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point, the track information not meeting the reference reliability, the type of the second external vehicle being a passenger vehicle, a commercial vehicle, or an unknown type of vehicle, the virtual box being in a lateral movement state, or the first heading direction of the virtual box not being a same direction as the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Sasatani teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
delete the pieces of the virtual track information from the second time point to the first time point, the pieces of virtual track information being stored in the memory and including the virtual track information, without obtaining the virtual track information, based on:
the second external vehicle being in the moving state, the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point, the track information not meeting the reference reliability, the type of the second external vehicle not being a passenger vehicle, a commercial vehicle, or an unknown type of vehicle, or the virtual box not being in a lateral movement state and the first heading direction of the virtual box being a same direction as the vehicle see at least [0052] where the corresponding detection box is deleted when a detection box is present in a region having a presence probability equal to or lower than the threshold.
Regarding claim 9, Sasatani teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the virtual box includes a first virtual box see at least FIG. 2; [0030]; [0031] and [0034] where the object detecting unit 4 detects a target object in a plurality of acquired image frames including a second external vehicle (e.g., vehicle 13) which corresponds to detection box information (i.e., virtual box 14b), and wherein the processor is configured to:
select, as a first value, a larger one of a width value of the first virtual box and a reference width value, wherein the width value is obtained based on a plurality of points corresponding to the second external vehicle at the first time point;
Select, as a second value, a larger one of a length value of the first virtual box and a reference length value, wherein the length value is obtained based on the plurality of points corresponding to the second external vehicle at the first time point; and
generate, based on the first value and the second value, a second virtual box, wherein a size of the first virtual box is adjusted in the second virtual box
see at least [0047]; [0065] and Claim 3 where “The low-reliability detection box correcting unit 82 uses the detection box information selected by the high reliability detection box selecting unit 81 to correct positional information of unselected detection boxes to which the same ID information is imparted.” The correction method includes a technique of enabling function approximation of a plurality of points, such as collecting a horizontal width and a vertical width of the detection box having a high reliability and calculating the horizontal width and vertical width of the detection box having a low reliability and correcting the position of the low-reliability detection box (i.e., adjusting the horizontal width and vertical width of the low-reliability detection box based on the high-reliability detection box in order to generate a corrected detection box).
Regarding claim 10, Sasatani teaches
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine, first coordinates in the direction of a second axis among a first axis, the second axis, and a third axis, based on a third point corresponding to a center of a segment formed by a first point and a second point associated with the first value see at least [0034], [0063], [0065], and [0067] where center coordinates are determined; and
determine a position of the second virtual box, based on the first coordinates in the direction of the second axis and second coordinates in a direction of the first axis of the first virtual box included in the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time, that the track information does not meet the reference reliability see at least [0067] where “a position of the detection target in the real world coordinate can be estimated and the distance from the camera to the detection target can be calculated by assuming that a point of the three-dimensional world coordinates calculated from the camera coordinates at the center of the lower end by the external parameters indicating the installation posture and angle of the camera is present on the ground having the height of O in the real world.”
Regarding claim 11, Sasatani teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
store, based on a moving-window scheme, each of the pieces of the virtual track information in the memory, using a moving-window scheme, depending on a time when each of the pieces of the virtual track information from the second time point to the first time point, the pieces of virtual track information being stored in the memory and including the virtual track information, is obtained see at least FIG. 13, [0032] and [0084] where the trails are continuously generated as the frames are obtained in real-time (i.e., moving-window scheme) and stored in the trail storage unit 101.
Regarding claim 16, Sasatani teaches
The method of claim 12, further comprising:
deleting the pieces of the virtual track information stored in the memory, based on:
the second external vehicle being in the moving state, the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point, the track information not meeting the reference reliability, the type of the second external vehicle not being a passenger vehicle, a commercial vehicle, or an unknown type of vehicle, or the virtual box not being in a lateral movement state and the first heading direction of the virtual box being a same direction as the vehicle see at least [0052] and [0081] where “the addition and deletion of the detection box is adjusted from the presence probability map information generated from the object detection result of each frame while using the information of the moving direction…”
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 9, above, and is rejected is under similar rationale.
Claim 21 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim10, above, and is rejected is under similar rationale.
Claim 22 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 11, above, and is rejected is under similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasatani in view of Vaquero et al. "Vaquero" ("Dual-Branch CNNs for Vehicle Detection and Tracking on LiDAR Data").
Regarding claim 2, Sasatani teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
when the track information representing the second external vehicle does not satisfy a predetermined reference reliability, identify whether at least one of whether a second outside vehicle at a first time is in a moving state, a type of the second outside vehicle, or a first heading direction of a virtual box corresponding to the second outside vehicle, or any combination thereof meets a specified condition, when the specified condition is satisfied, obtain the adjusted virtual track information see at least [0073] & [0078] where the object tracking apparatus 90 includes a detection target moving direction predicting unit that estimates a motion of an object and the trail is output based on the predicted motion of the object. Also see at least [0069] where the detection box is corrected according to the determination that the detection box has a low reliability.
Sasatani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except wherein the second outside vehicle traveling in front of a first outside vehicle obtained by means of the LiDAR.
However, Vaquero teaches that it is known to provide the apparatus wherein the second outside vehicle traveling in front of a first outside vehicle obtained by means of the LiDAR see at least the Abstract where a vehicle detection and tracking system is provided which utilizes 3D LiDAR information. Further, see at least FIG. 9 which provides an illustration of utilizing a LiDAR sensor to detect and track vehicles in complex urban environments, “even when they are very close to each other (first row) or even partially occluded (third and bottom row).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sasatani to incorporate the teachings of Vaquero and provide the apparatus wherein the second outside vehicle traveling in front of a first outside vehicle obtained by means of the LiDAR. In doing so, utilizing LiDAR sensors to detect and track external vehicles provides an improvement because “these sensors are able to measure accurately the 3D in the scene and are more robust to changes of illumination and harsh weather conditions than cameras” (page 3 left column).
Regarding claim 14, Sasatani in view of Vaquero teaches
A method performed by a processor see at least Sasatani [0030]; calculator PC, the method comprising:
identifying, by a processor see at least Sasatani [0030]; calculator PC, whether at least one of whether a second external vehicle at a first time, the second external vehicle traveling in front of a first external vehicle obtained by means of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) see at least the Abstract of Vaquero where a vehicle detection and tracking system is provided which utilizes 3D LiDAR information. Further, see at least FIG. 9 which provides an illustration of utilizing a LiDAR sensor to detect and track vehicles in complex urban environments, “even when they are very close to each other (first row) or even partially occluded (third and bottom row) is in a moving state, a type of the second external vehicle, or a first heading direction of a virtual box corresponding to the second external vehicle, or any combination thereof meets a specified condition, based on that track information representing the second external vehicle does not meet reference reliability see at least Sasatani FIG. 2; [0030]; [0031] and [0034] where the object detecting unit 4 detects a target object in a plurality of acquired image frames including a second external vehicle (e.g., vehicle 13) which corresponds to detection box information (i.e., virtual box 14b). Further, see at least [0073] & [0078] where the object tracking apparatus 90 includes a detection target moving direction predicting unit that estimates a motion of an object and the trail is output based on the predicted motion of the object. Also see at least [0069] where the detection box is corrected according to the determination that the detection box has a low reliability;
obtaining, by the processor, virtual track information by correcting at least one of a track path tracking the second external vehicle, the first heading direction of the virtual box, or a position of the virtual box, or any combination thereof, based on that the specified condition is met see at least Sasatani FIG. 10 and [0061] where a detection box position correcting unit 9 performs a process of correcting detection box information of a low-reliability detection box having a reliability lower than a reliability of a high-reliability detection box having a reliability higher than a threshold. A trail (i.e., virtual track information) is generated based on the corrected detection box; and
outputting, by the processor, the virtual track information as the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point, based on at least one of whether the second external vehicle is in the moving state, whether a difference between the first heading direction of the virtual box and a second heading direction of a vehicle is less than or equal to a specified angle, the type of the second external vehicle, the number of pieces of virtual track information from a second time point prior to the first time point to the first time point, the pieces of virtual track information being stored in a memory and including the virtual track information, a length of a virtual track path included in the virtual track information, a position of the virtual box included in the virtual track information, or whether the vehicle makes a lane change, or any combination thereof see at least Sasatani [0073] & [0078] where the object tracking apparatus 90 includes a detection target moving direction predicting unit that estimates a motion of an object and the trail is output based on the predicted motion of the object.
Claim(s) 6-7, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasatani in view of Fu et al. "Fu" (US 2022/0066020 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sasatani teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
adjust a position of the virtual box at the first time point, wherein the adjustment of the position of the virtual box is based on the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point and each of positions of the virtual box, the positions being included in each of datasets corresponding to the second external vehicle from the second time point to the first time point, and the datasets being stored in the memory see at least [0032] where image frames are automatically extracted within a designated imaging time (i.e., from a first time point to a second time point). Further, see at least [0034] where the object detecting unit 4 detects a target object in a plurality of frames acquired by the frame collecting unit 3 and stores detection box information as illustrated in 15 of FIG. 2. Further, see at least [0073]-[0074] where a highly accurate trail of the detection target is generated by predicting a moving direction of the detection target and executing generation of a presence probability map, calculation of a reliability of a detection box, and position correction by using a result of the prediction;
obtain the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point and a [third] heading direction, wherein the first heading direction of the virtual box is adjusted in the [third] heading direction, the first heading direction is included in each of the datasets corresponding to the second external vehicle from the second time point to the first time point, and the datasets is stored in the memory see at least [0078]-[0080] where the moving direction of the detection target (i.e., the second external vehicle) is estimated ; and
obtain the virtual track information, based on the [third] heading direction and the adjusted position of the virtual box at the first time point, the virtual track information see at least [0080] where a moving direction of the center coordinates of the detection boxes of the detection between frames are obtained and the detection box is corrected to have a high reliability when the moving direction is similar to the predicted moving direction of the detection target.
The examiner notes that [brackets] have been added around claim limitations not explicitly disclosed by Sasatani. Specifically, Sasatani is silent regarding utilizing a third heading direction and obtaining virtual track information based on the third heading direction.
However, Fu teaches that it is known to provide a third heading direction and obtaining virtual track information based on the third heading direction. See at least [0035] and FIG. 3A where an estimated heading of a target object is determined. Further, see at least FIG. 3B and [0039]-[0040] where a second updated heading Θ’’’ (i.e., a third heading) and second updated bounding box are determined. The second updated heading Θ’’’ (i.e., a third heading) indicates a change in a heading compared to a heading Θ’.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sasatani to incorporate the teachings of Fu and provide the apparatus comprising obtaining a third heading direction and adjusting a first heading direction of the virtual box in a third heading direction and obtaining the virtual track information based on the third heading direction. In doing so, this provides an improvement of generating a reliable estimate of the heading of a target [0058].
Regarding claim 7, Sasatani in view of Fu teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
store the obtained virtual track information in the memory, based on:
the second external vehicle being in the moving state see at least Sasatani [0073] where a trail of a detection target (i.e., second external vehicle) is generated by predicting a moving direction of the detection target and [0083] where the generated trail is stored in the storage unit 101,
the difference between the first heading direction of the virtual box and the second heading direction of the vehicle being less than or equal to the specified angle see at least Fu [0040] where outliers of the points 301 to 314 may be removed if there is a difference between the second updated heading Θ’’’ and the updated heading Θ’’ as a result of removing an outlier point. Therefore, the opposite is also true. If there is no difference between the second updated heading Θ’’’ and the updated heading Θ’’, then no outlier exists and the updated heading is stored,
the type of the second external vehicle see at least Sasatani [0073] where a trail of a detection target (i.e., second external vehicle) is generated by predicting a moving direction of the detection target (i.e., the type of the second external vehicle being a moving vehicle) and [0083] where the generated trail is stored in the storage unit 101,
the number of the pieces of the virtual track information being greater than or equal to a reference number see at least Sasatani [0083] where the generated trail is stored in the storage unit 101 when at least one trail of a plurality of trails is generated,
the length of the virtual track path being greater than a reference length see at least Sasatani [0087] where the object tracking apparatus generates the trail of the object in the measurement range and stores the trail in the storage unit 101 [0083],
the position of the virtual box being present in a specified area see at least Sasatani [0073] where a trail of the second external vehicle is generated by executing a position correction by using a result of a moving direction prediction, and
the vehicle not making the lane change see at least Sasatani [0079] where the second external vehicle is not making a lane change, the trail of the second external vehicle is generated and the generated trail is stored in the storage unit 101 [0083].
Regarding claim 15, Sasatani in view of Fu teaches
The method of claim 12, further comprising:
obtaining the virtual track information, based on:
the second external vehicle being in the moving state the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point see at least Sasatani [0073] & [0078] where the object tracking apparatus 90 includes a detection target moving direction predicting unit that estimates a motion of an object and the trail is output based on the predicted motion of the object,
the track information not meeting the reference reliability see at least Sasatani FIG. 10 and [0061] where a detection box position correcting unit 9 performs a process of correcting detection box information of a low-reliability detection box having a reliability lower than a reliability of a high-reliability detection box having a reliability higher than a threshold. A trail (i.e., virtual track information) is generated based on the corrected detection box,
the type of the second external vehicle being a passenger vehicle, a commercial vehicle, or an unknown type of vehicle see at least Sasatani FIG. 2, and
the virtual box being in a lateral movement state, or
the first heading direction of the virtual box not being a same direction as the vehicle see at least Fu FIG. 6 and [0059]-[0060] where a heading or estimated heading of a target may be input into a trained machine learning model and an indication of an actual future or immediate action taken by the target may be output; and
controlling, based on the signal, autonomous operation of the vehicle Sasatani does not explicitly disclose controlling the autonomous operation of the vehicle based on a signal, however, this is a well-understood, routine and conventional function in the art of vehicle controls and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. For example, see at least FIG. 7 of Qian et al. (US 2023/0003871 A1).
Claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 6, above, and is rejected is under similar rationale.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 7, above, and is rejected is under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasatani in view of Nishiura (US 2003/0219147 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sasatani does not teach
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a first scatter plot of first tracking points included in the virtual track information and a second scatter plot of second tracking points included in the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point, based on obtaining the virtual track information; and
store the virtual track information in the memory, based on the first scatter plot being less than a reference scatter plot and the second scatter plot being greater than or equal to the reference scatter plot.
However, Nishiura teaches that it is known to provide:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a first scatter plot of first tracking points included in the virtual track information and a second scatter plot of second tracking points included in the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point, based on obtaining the virtual track information
store the virtual track information in the memory, based on the first scatter plot being less than a reference scatter plot and the second scatter plot being greater than or equal to the reference scatter plot see at least the Abstract, [0007] and [0010]-[0011] where a plurality of tracking in a first image is compared to a plurality of tracking points in a second image. The method includes detecting a plurality of destination candidate points each corresponding to each tracking point from the second image; and a position inconsistency correction unit configured to decide whether positional relation of the plurality of destination candidate points is consistent with positional relation of the plurality of tracking points, and to correct at least one of the plurality of destination candidate points on the second image if the positional relation of the plurality of destination candidate points is inconsistent with the positional relation of the plurality of tracking points. The updated second image is stored in the memory.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sasatani to incorporate the teachings of Nishiura and provide The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: determine a first scatter plot of first tracking points included in the virtual track information and a second scatter plot of second tracking points included in the track information representing the second external vehicle at the first time point, based on obtaining the virtual track information store the virtual track information in the memory, based on the first scatter plot being less than a reference scatter plot and the second scatter plot being greater than or equal to the reference scatter plot. In doing so, this provides an improvement of correctly tracking a plurality of points of the object as non-rigid body without positional inconsistency of the plurality of points [0006].
Claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as Claim 8, above, and is rejected is under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasatani in view of Furumachi et al. (JP2020091743 A).
Regarding claim 12, Sasatani teaches: The apparatus of claim 11.
Sasatani does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to:
perform time compensation for each of the pieces of the virtual track information stored in the memory, based on at least one of:
a longitudinal speed of the vehicle, a lateral speed of the vehicle, a reference time associated with the vehicle, a yaw rate of the vehicle, or coordinates of the virtual box corresponding to the second external vehicle at the first time point.
However, Furumachi teaches it is known to disclose wherein the processor is configured to:
perform time compensation for each of the pieces of the virtual track information stored in the memory, based on at least one of:
a longitudinal speed of the vehicle, a lateral speed of the vehicle, a reference time associated with the vehicle see at least the Abstract and [0007] where an information processing device comprises a memory unit configured to store multiple pieces of data (e.g., the stored virtual trail data of Sasatani [0084]), detect a change in a reference time (i.e., the designated imaging time in which the frames are extracted in Sasatani [0032]) that is the basis for a first time indicated by a first timestamp and a second timestamp and correct the first timestamp when the reference time has changed, a yaw rate of the vehicle, or coordinates of the virtual box corresponding to the second external vehicle at the first time point.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sasatani to incorporate the teachings of Furumachi and provide the concept wherein the processor is configured to: perform time compensation for each of the pieces of the virtual track information stored in the memory, based on at least one of: a longitudinal speed of the vehicle, a lateral speed of the vehicle, a reference time associated with the vehicle, a yaw rate of the vehicle, or coordinates of the virtual box corresponding to the second external vehicle at the first time point. In doing so, the apparatus is improved by preventing inconsistencies between the order of the data and timestamps stored in the memory due to the calibration of a clock of the device [0002].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasatani in view of Kurumisawa (US 2014/0121928 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sasatani teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
adjust, based on a portion of the virtual track path included in the virtual track information, at least one of:
the first heading direction of the virtual box, the position of the virtual box, a size of the virtual box, or the track path tracking the second external vehicle see at least [0031] where a trail of the detection target is generated by correcting detection box information and wherein the detection box position correcting unit 9 has a function of correcting a position of the detection box based on the reliability of the detection box.
Sasatani teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except determine, based on at least one of a speed of the vehicle or a yaw rate of the vehicle, that the vehicle enters a curved section.
Nevertheless, Kurumisawa teaches that it is known to provide the apparatus configured to determine, based on at least one of a speed of the vehicle or a yaw rate of the vehicle, that the vehicle enters a curved section see at least the abstract where “If commencement of oscillation of the yaw rate and acceleration demand is detected, due to running along the curved path, guard processing is applied to the values of speed limit used to calculate the acceleration demand or is applied to the acceleration demand, such as to prevent the acceleration demand from varying in a direction that would increase the speed limit.”
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sasatani to incorporate the teachings of Kurumisawa and provide the apparatus configured to determine, based on at least one of a speed of the vehicle or a yaw rate of the vehicle, that the vehicle enters a curved section. In doing so, this provides an improvement of substantially suppressing instability of deceleration control due to the oscillation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carlson et al. (US 5,379,044) discloses a method for efficient multi-target tracking of targets from a sensor system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brittany Renee Peko whose telephone number is (408)918-7506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:30 PT.
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 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.
/B.R.P./01/05/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661