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 .
Election/Restrictions
The response to the restriction requirement is being acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are elected and pending, and claims 21-23 have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites in lines 3-4 “wherein the one or more operations associated with the machine are performed within a target region of the one or more target regions such that one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold”. There is no corresponding description that describes this limitation. At most the specification, at Paragraphs 0026 and 0044 describe a boundary confidence score but does not explain how the operations are performed such that “one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold”. Paragraph 0163 describes that when a confidence score does not meet the threshold, a supervisory MCU may arbitrate between the computers, however fails to describe how the operations are performed such that “one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold”. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the one or more operations associated with the machine are performed within a target region of the one or more target regions such that one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold” lacks a written description. For the purposes of compact prosecution the claim limitation is being interpreted as cited in the prior art rejection below.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites in lines 3-4 “one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold”. It unclear from the specification what this exactly means. Paragraphs 0026 and 0044 describe a boundary confidence score but does not explain how the operations are performed such that “one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold”. Paragraph 0163 describes that when a confidence score does not meet the threshold, a supervisory MCU may arbitrate between the computers, however fails to describe how the operations are performed such that “one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold”. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of compact prosecution the claim limitation is being interpreted as cited in the prior art rejection below.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niewiadomski (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0146915 A1) hereinafter Niewiadomski.
Regarding claim 1, Niewiadomski discloses a method comprising:
determining, based at least on sensor data generated using one or more sensors of a machine, a presence of one or more target regions within an environment, the one or more target regions including one or more target areas representative of one or more potential locations of one or more target objects [see Paragraph 0078 - discusses that a parking area (target region) is determined from at least one sensor, the parking area is a potential location for a curb, and see Figure 2 below];
PNG
media_image1.png
428
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Niewiadomski
determining, based at least on a correlation associated with one or more points of the sensor data within the one or more target areas, that the one or more points correspond to at least one target object of the one or more target objects [see Paragraph 0079 - discusses identifying a curb within the parking area based on a camera and/or lidar using image recognition/object identification techniques, cameras use pixels (see Paragraph 0054) and Lidars use point clouds (see Paragraph 0052)];
based at least on the one or more points corresponding to the target object, tracking one or more predicted locations of the at least one target object responsive to one or more movements associated with the machine [see Paragraph 0065 - discusses after a vehicle has started to enter a parking area, identifying a height of a curb in order to determine a parking position, and see Paragraph 0079 - discusses continuously updating the location and height of the curb - therefore, after the vehicle has started to enter a parking area, that a vehicle identifies and continuously updates (tracks) the location and height of the curb]; and
performing one or more operations associated with the machine based at least on the tracking of the one or more predicted locations of the at least one target object [see Paragraphs 0086-0087 - discusses that the vehicle parks at the parking position based on the height and location of the curb, the vehicle commands the propulsion and steering system (operations) to park the vehicle].
Regarding claim 3, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Niewiadomski further discloses updating the one or more predicted locations of the at least one target object based at least on second sensor data obtained subsequent to the one or more movements [see Paragraph 0089 - discusses detecting an object (see Paragraph 0079 - discusses continuously updating the location and height of the curb via sensors) that prevents the vehicle from entering the parking position, therefore an updated height/location of the curb is detected when the vehicle attempts to park at the parking position]; and performing one or more second operations associated with the machine based at least on the updating of the one or more predicted locations [see Paragraph 0089 - discusses that after the autonomous vehicle stops in the parking area, the vehicle determines that the vehicle is not sufficiently within the parking area due to the detected object and the vehicle exits the parking area (second operation)].
Regarding claim 5, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Niewiadomski further discloses wherein the one or more target regions correspond to one or more parking spaces in the environment [see Paragraph 0035 - discusses a parking area, and see Figure 2 below – depicts a parking area (space)] and the one or more potential locations represented using the one or more target areas correspond to one or more average locations of the one or more target objects in the one or more parking spaces [see Paragraph 0053 - discusses that the location of the curb is tracked based on length, distance of the curb to other features, curbs are potential objects in a parking area (space)].
PNG
media_image1.png
428
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Niewiadomski
Regarding claim 6, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 5. Niewiadomski further discloses wherein the one or more target objects correspond to one or more parking barriers, the one or more parking barriers including see Paragraph 0035 - discusses a curb]
Regarding claim 18, Niewiadomski discloses at least one processor comprising:
processing circuitry to perform one or more operations associated with a machine [see Paragraphs 0086-0087 - discusses that the vehicle parks at the parking position based on the height and location of the curb, the vehicle commands the propulsion and steering system (operations) to park the vehicle] based at least on tracking a predicted location of a target object in an environment responsive to performance of one or more previous operations associated with the machine [see Paragraph 0065 - discusses after a vehicle has started to enter a parking area, identifying a height of a curb in order to determine a parking position, and see Paragraph 0079 - discusses continuously updating the location and height of the curb - therefore, after the vehicle has started to enter a parking area, a vehicle identifies and continuously, or at intervals, updates (tracks) the location and height of the curb],
the predicted location of the target object at least one of determined or updated while the machine was positioned at one or more previous locations based at least on sensor data indicating a presence of one or more objects within a target region of the environment [see Paragraph 0079 – discusses identifying the curb at a first instance and then continuously, or at intervals, updating the location and height of the curb].
Regarding claim 20, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 18. Niewiadomski further discloses wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine [see Paragraph 0038 - discusses that the vehicle operates in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, and the mode is controlled by a computer (control system)].
Claims 11-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfeiffer (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0004744 A1) hereinafter Pfeiffer.
Regarding claim 11, Pfeiffer discloses a system comprising: one or more processors to:
determine, based at least on sensor data corresponding to one or more target regions in an environment, a probability associated with one or more target objects being disposed in one or more target areas within the one or more target regions [see Paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0074 - discusses generating sensor data of a target region (see Figure 1 below – the target region including objects of a sidewalk, object (fire hydrant), and driving surface), and see Paragraph 0032 – discusses analyzing the sensor data to determine probabilities associated with the points of objects and potential objects (curb) being disposed in a target area (sidewalk, driving surface, and curb) of the target region];
PNG
media_image2.png
338
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Pfeiffer
track one or more predicted locations corresponding to the one or more target objects based at least on the probability meeting or exceeding a threshold [see Paragraphs 0032 and 0074-0078- discusses that the vehicle selects the points for object(s) that are equal to or greater than a probability threshold]; and
perform one or more operations associated with a machine within the one or more target regions based at least on the tracking of the one or more predicted locations [see Paragraph 0079 - discusses the vehicle performs one or more actions based on the objects (curb)].
Regarding claim 12, Pfeiffer discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Pfeiffer further discloses wherein the determination of the probability associated with the one or more target objects being disposed in the one or more target areas comprises determining whether a number of points of the sensor data that correspond to the one or more target areas meets or exceeds a threshold [see Paragraphs 0032 and 0074 - discusses that the points are equal to or greater than a threshold probability, see Paragraph 0031 – discusses generating sensor data over a period of time to generate a greater number of points – therefore, the threshold probability is determined for the generated number of points].
Regarding claim 13, Pfeiffer discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Pfeiffer further discloses determine one or more orientations of the one or more target objects based at least on an alignment associated with one or more points of the sensor data [see Paragraph 0037 - discusses generating a curve that represents a curb based on the points in the sensor data, the curve indicates the orientation of the curb].
Regarding claim 15, Pfeiffer discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Pfeiffer further disclose wherein the one or more target regions correspond to one or more parking spaces in the environment [see Paragraph 0031 – discusses the driving surface being a a parking lot, which comprises multiple parking spaces] and wherein the one or more target objects correspond to one or more parking barriers associated with the one or more parking spaces, the one or more parking barriers including see Paragraph 0015 – discusses the potential object is a curb].
Regarding claim 17, Pfeiffer discloses the invention with respect to claim 11. Pfeiffer further disclose wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine [see Paragraph 0052 - discusses a computing device of an autonomous vehicle or semi-autonomous].
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 2, 4, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niewiadomski in view of Pfeiffer.
Regarding claim 2, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Niewiadomski fails to disclose determining, based at least on a second correlation associated with one or more second points of the sensor data within the one or more target areas, one or more second predicted locations of the at least one target object; and determining to track the one or more predicted locations instead of the one or more second predicted locations based at least on a first score associated with the correlation being greater than a second score associated with the second correlation.
Pfeiffer discloses:
determining, based at least on a second correlation associated with one or more second points of sensor data within one or more target areas, one or more second predicted locations of at least one target object [see Paragraphs 0014-0015 - discusses analyzing points of sensor data that are generated over a period of time, the points include first points and second points that are then selected/discarded during the probability analysis]; and
determining to track one or more predicted locations instead of the one or more second predicted locations based at least on a first score associated with the correlation being greater than a second score associated with the second correlation [see Paragraph 0015 - discusses discarding first (second) points and selecting second (first) points when identifying a location of a curb, the determination of the discard/select is based on whether the probabilities of the points are greater than a threshold probability (score)].
Pfeiffer suggests that the points are used to identify a curb proximate to the vehicle [see Paragraph 0015], and that an autonomous vehicle needs to determine the location of a curb so that the autonomous vehicle avoids the curb or to pick up and drop off a user at a location proximate to the curb [see Paragraph 0001]. Pfeiffer further suggests that identifying point with a higher score (meet or exceed probability threshold), has a higher confidence for accuracy in order to identify a curb [see Paragraph 0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the tracking of the target object as taught by Niewiadomski to determine, based at least on a second correlation associated with one or more second points of sensor data within one or more target areas, one or more second predicted locations of at least one target object and determine, based at least on a second correlation associated with one or more second points of sensor data within one or more target areas, one or more second predicted locations of at least one target object as taught by Pfeiffer in order to have a higher confidence for accuracy when identifying a curb [Pfeiffer, see Paragraph 0015] which helps an autonomous vehicle determine the location of a curb so that the autonomous vehicle avoids the curb or to pick up and drop off a user at a location proximate to the curb [Pfeiffer, see Paragraph 0001].
Regarding claim 4, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Niewiadomski fails to disclose wherein the one or more operations associated with the machine are performed within a target region of the one or more target regions such that one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold.
Pfeiffer discloses wherein the one or more operations associated with the machine are performed within a target region of the one or more target regions such that one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold [see Paragraph 0031 - discusses that the vehicle is navigating and generating sensor data, see Paragraph 0032 – discusses determining probabilities with the points from the sensor data, and see Paragraph 0015 - discusses discarding points that are lower than a probability threshold (low confidence) in order to identify a curb].
Pfeiffer suggests that selecting and discarding of points is used to identify a curb proximate to the vehicle [see Paragraph 0015], and that an autonomous vehicle needs to determine the location of a curb so that the autonomous vehicle avoids the curb or to pick up and drop off a user at a location proximate to the curb [see Paragraph 0001].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the one or more operations associated with the machine are performed within a target region of the one or more target regions as taught by Niewiadomski such that one or more confidence scores associated with one or more sensor measurements corresponding to the at least one target object are less than a threshold as taught by Pfeiffer in order to discard points and select points that have a higher confidence for accuracy when identifying a curb [Pfeiffer, see Paragraph 0015] which helps an autonomous vehicle determine the location of a curb so that the autonomous vehicle avoids the curb or to pick up and drop off a user at a location proximate to the curb [Pfeiffer, see Paragraph 0001].
Regarding claim 7, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Niewiadomski fails to disclose wherein the determining that the one or more points correspond to the at least one target object comprises:
generating, based at least on the one or more target areas and the one or more points, data indicating at least one of a proposed location or a proposed orientation associated with the at least one target object;
calculating one or more metrics indicative of at least an alignment of the one or more points and the data; and
determining whether the one or more points correspond to the at least one target object based at least on evaluating one or more values of the one or more metrics with respect to one or more thresholds.
Pfeiffer discloses wherein determining that one or more points correspond to at least one target object comprises:
generating, based at least on the one or more target areas and the one or more points, data indicating at least one of a proposed location or a proposed orientation associated with the at least one target object [see Paragraph 0035 - discusses determining separation points, from the sensor data) that indicates a location and orientation of a potential curb];
calculating one or more metrics indicative of at least an alignment of the one or more points and the data [see Paragraph 0043 - discusses determining an energy (metric) associated with a potential separation point that is based on differences of the location of points, see Paragraph 0046 - discusses determining a final separation that corresponds to a potential separation point]; and
determining whether the one or more points correspond to the at least one target object based at least on evaluating one or more values of the one or more metrics with respect to one or more thresholds [see Paragraphs 0046-0048 - discusses using the final separation points to generate a curve that represents the curb, discusses determining whether the final separation points are associated with a maximum energy (threshold)].
Pfeiffer suggests that determining separation points (data) from the sensor data and the separation points energies (metrics) more accurately generates a curve that represents the curb [see Paragraph 0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Niewiadomski to generate, based at least on the one or more target areas and the one or more points, data indicating at least one of a proposed location or a proposed orientation associated with the at least one target object, calculate one or more metrics indicative of at least an alignment of the one or more points and the data, and determine whether the one or more points correspond to the at least one target object based at least on evaluating one or more values of the one or more metrics with respect to one or more thresholds as taught by Pfeiffer in order to more accurately generate a curve that represents the curb [Pfeiffer, see Paragraph 0021].
Regarding claim 19, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 18.
However, Niewiadomski fails to disclose wherein the target region includes one or more target spaces representative of one or more locations in which a probability of a detected object corresponding to the target object meets or exceeds a threshold based at least on the detected object being located within a target space of the one or more target spaces.
Pfeiffer discloses wherein a target region includes one or more target spaces representative of one or more locations in which a probability of a detected object corresponding to a target object meets or exceeds a threshold based at least on a detected object being located within a target space of the one or more target spaces [see Paragraph 0032 - discusses that the vehicle selects the points for object(s) that are equal to or greater than a probability threshold].
Pfeiffer suggests that identifying point with a higher score (meet or exceed probability threshold), has a higher confidence for accuracy in order to identify a curb [see Paragraph 0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Niewiadomski to determine a probability of a detected object corresponding to the target object that meets or exceeds a threshold based at least on the detected object being located within a target space of one or more target spaces as taught by Pfeiffer in order to have a higher confidence for accuracy when identifying a curb [Pfeiffer, see Paragraph 0015].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niewiadomski in view of Panthri et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0091569 A1) hereinafter Panthri.
Regarding claim 8, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Niewiadomski fails to disclose obtaining map data indicating one or more locations of the one or more target regions in the environment; and evaluating the sensor data with respect to the map data, wherein the determining the presence of one or more target regions within the environment is based at least on the evaluating.
Panthri discloses obtaining map data indicating one or more locations of one or more target regions in an environment; and evaluating sensor data with respect to the map data, wherein determining a presence of one or more target regions within the environment is based at least on the evaluating [see Paragraph 0042 - discusses comparing sensor data with map data to indicate the location of a parking lot].
Panthri suggests that evaluating the sensor with the map data, determines that a vehicle is within a threshold distance of a parking space (target region) [see Paragraph 0042]. Further, it is known to one having ordinary skill in the art that using different data such as sensor data and map data increases the accuracy of location determination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Niewiadomski to obtain map data indicating one or more locations of one or more target regions in an environment and evaluate the sensor data with respect to the map data, wherein determining a presence of one or more target regions within the environment is based at least on the evaluating as taught by Panthri in order to increase location determination accuracy and to determine that a vehicle is within a threshold distance of a parking space [Panthri, see Paragraph 0042].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niewiadomski in view of Widjaja et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0260298 A1) hereinafter Widjaja.
Regarding claim 9, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Niewiadomski fails to disclose generating, using the sensor data, a map representing one or more locations corresponding to one or more detected objects in the environment, wherein the tracking of the one or more predicted locations of the at least one target object comprises tracking a location of an identifier on the map, the identifier corresponding to the at least one target object.
Widjaja discloses generating, using the sensor data, a map representing one or more locations corresponding to one or more detected objects in the environment, wherein the tracking of the one or more predicted locations of the at least one target object comprises tracking a location of an identifier on the map, the identifier corresponding to the at least one target object [see Paragraph 0077 - discusses a mapping engine that updates a map with location/orientation and semantic information about objects (classifications such as a curb), and see Paragraphs 0110-0118 - discusses that an enhanced semantic mapping engine that uses sensor data to generate an annotated map].
Widjaja suggests that cleaner and more efficient maps are generated using raw point features (from sensors) [see Paragraph 0022 and 0076] and that the autonomous vehicle relies on maps to navigate [see Paragraph 0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Niewiadomski to generate, using sensor data, a map representing one or more locations corresponding to one or more detected objects in the environment, wherein the tracking of the one or more predicted locations of the at least one target object comprises tracking a location of an identifier on the map, the identifier corresponding to the at least one target object as taught by Widjaja in order to generate cleaner and more efficient maps for autonomous vehicle navigation [Widjaja, see Paragraphs 0002, 0022 and 0076].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niewiadomski in view of Park et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0390608 A1) hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 10, Niewiadomski discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Niewiadomski fails to disclose wherein the one or more target objects are associated with one or more vertical dimensions that are less than a threshold vertical dimension, and the determining that the one or more points correspond to the at least one target object is further based at least on one or more vertical measurements associated with the one or more points being less than the threshold vertical dimension.
Park discloses wherein: one or more target objects are associated with one or more vertical dimensions that are less than a threshold vertical dimension [see Paragraphs 0075-0086 - discusses determining whether sample points are equal to or less than a height threshold], and determining that one or more points correspond to at least one target object is further based at least on one or more vertical measurements associated with the one or more points being less than the threshold vertical dimension [see Paragraph 0109 - discusses that the multiple sample points are determined to be curb candidate points based on the sample points being equal to or less than the height threshold].
Park suggests that precise positioning of a vehicle using detected curbs is important for autonomous driving [see Paragraph 0225]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Niewiadomski to determine that one or more points corresponding to at least one target object is further based at least on one or more vertical measurements associated with the one or more points being less than the threshold vertical dimension as taught by Park in order to precisely position a vehicle with respect to a curb [Park, see Paragraph 0025].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer in view of Niewiadomski.
Regarding claim 14, Pfeiffer discloses the invention with respect to claim 11.
However, Pfeiffer fails to disclose one or more processors further to:
update the one or more predicted locations of the one or more target objects based at least on second sensor data obtained subsequent to the performance of the one or more operations; and perform one or more second operations associated with the machine based at least on the update of the one or more predicted locations.
Niewiadomski discloses one or more processors further to: update one or more predicted locations of one or more target objects based at least on second sensor data obtained subsequent to the performance of the one or more operations [see Paragraph 0089 - discusses detecting an object (see Paragraph 0079 - discusses continuously updating the location and height of the curb via sensors) that prevents the vehicle from entering the parking position, therefore an updated height/location of the curb is detected when the vehicle attempts to park at the parking position]; and perform one or more second operations associated with the machine based at least on the update of the one or more predicted locations [see Paragraph 0089 - discusses that after the autonomous vehicle stops in the parking area, the vehicle determines that the vehicle is not sufficiently within the parking area due to the detected object and the vehicle exits the parking area (second operation)].
Niewiadomski suggests that an object prevents the vehicle from parking in a parking position and the vehicle then determining identifying a new parking area [see Paragraph 0089].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Pfeiffer to update one or more predicted locations of one or more target objects based at least on second sensor data obtained subsequent to the performance of the one or more operations and perform one or more second operations associated with the machine based at least on the update of the one or more predicted locations as taught by Niewiadomski in order to identify a new parking position when the object prevents the vehicle from parking [Niewiadomski, see Paragraph 0089].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer in view of Panthri.
Regarding claim 16, Pfeiffer discloses the invention with respect to claim 11.
However, Pfeiffer fails to disclose one or more processors further to: obtain map data indicating one or more locations of the one or more target regions in the environment; and analyze the sensor data with respect to the map data, wherein the determination of the probability associated with the one or more target objects being disposed in the one or more target areas of the one or more target regions is based at least on the analysis.
Panthri discloses one or more processors further to: obtain map data indicating one or more locations of the one or more target regions in the environment; and analyze the sensor data with respect to the map data [see Paragraph 0042 - discusses comparing sensor data with map data to indicate the location of a parking lot].
Panthri suggests that evaluating the sensor with the map data, determines that a vehicle is within a threshold distance of a parking space (target region) [see Paragraph 0042]. Further, it is known to one having ordinary skill in the art that using different data such as sensor data and map data increases the accuracy of location determination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the one or more processors as taught by Pfeiffer to obtain map data indicating one or more locations of the one or more target regions in the environment and analyze the sensor data with respect to the map data as taught by Panthri before the determination of the probability associated with the one or more target objects being disposed in the one or more target areas of the one or more target regions in order to increase location determination accuracy and to determine that a vehicle is within a threshold distance of a parking space [Panthri, see Paragraph 0042] before performing the one or more actions based on the target object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665