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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025 and 03/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim(s) 10, Applicant's claim(s) encompass an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. For instance, Balazs and Natroshvili fail to disclose the specific radar and camera fusion based occupancy grid and occupancy coefficients taken within context of the overall claim.
As best understood within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
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 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) 1, 3-6, 15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balazs (US 20200377108) in view of Natroshvili et al. (US 20190049239 hereinafter Natroshvili).
Regarding claim 1, Balazs teaches An apparatus comprising: at least one memory (0033 “memory device 120.”); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
obtain at least one radar-based occupancy grid based on radar sensor measurements (0032 “The vehicle 100 may further include a second sensor 106. The second sensor may include at least one of a second camera sensor or a second radar sensor.”’ 0035 “Each ISM of the plurality of ISM may be configured to generate an occupancy grid (e.g., from the input data 124 and 126).”),
each of the at least one radar-based occupancy grid comprising a plurality of first cells (0006 “According to an embodiment, a neural network device includes a neural network. The neural network is configured to process a first grid including a plurality of grid cells”),
each cell of the plurality of first cells having a corresponding first occupancy probability and first velocity (0085 “Radar data may further include information about velocities”);
obtain at least one camera-based occupancy grid based on camera measurements (0032 “The first sensor 104 may include at least one of a first camera sensor or a first radar sensor.”),
each of the at least one camera-based occupancy grid comprising a plurality of second cells (0035 “The second grid 134 may include a plurality of grid cells”; 0086 “A camera grid is obtained by projecting the 3D bounding box of each camera object detection to a 2D ground plane”),
each cell of the plurality of second cells having a corresponding second occupancy probability (0006 “At least one grid cell has information about an occupancy of the second portion of the field of view assigned to the at least one grid cell, the information being based on data provided by the second sensor.”); and
determine a dynamic occupancy grid by analyzing the at least one radar-based occupancy grid and the at least one camera-based occupancy grid (0101 “include that the first sensor includes at least one of a first camera sensor or a first radar sensor, and/or that the second sensor includes at least one of a second camera sensor or a second radar sensor.”).
Balazs does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Natroshvili teaches
each cell of the plurality of second cells having a corresponding second occupancy probability and second velocity (fig 4; 0049 “the velocity of the particles in a respective grid cell 302 may be the mean velocity of the particles that are contained in the respective grid cell 302.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Natroshvili with the teachings of Balazs. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system perception (Natroshvili 0063). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Natroshvili merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both Balazs and Natroshvili disclose similar driver assistance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Balazs teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the at least one radar-based occupancy grid and the at least one camera-based occupancy grid (Balazs 0086 “A radar grid is generated by applying an ISM and thus converting the raw data detections to a spatial occupancy probability. A camera grid is obtained by projecting the 3D bounding box of each camera object detection to a 2D ground plane”).
Regarding claim 4, Balazs teaches The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to wait for sensor data from all of a plurality of radar sensors of the apparatus and all of at least one camera of the apparatus, or expiration of a sensor data collection time interval, before determining the at least one radar-based occupancy grid and the at least one camera-based occupancy grid (0085 “The individual frames may include synchronized measurements from a LIDAR sensor, a camera sensor, a radar sensor, and position sensors (IMU and GPS).”; 0030 “sensor fusion, which are capable of providing a dense environmental model within one measurement cycle.”).
Regarding claim 5, Balazs teaches The apparatus of claim 4,
Balazs does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Natroshvili teaches
wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the sensor data collection time interval as a function of speed of the apparatus (0021 “may use object tracking device to monitor estimate the number of impressions or to derive the most relevant content to display, traffic congestion sensors that may use the object tracking device to estimate the traffic in a given area, speedometers that may use the object tracking device to compute the speed of vehicles in a given area.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Natroshvili with the teachings of Balazs. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system perception (Natroshvili 0063). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Natroshvili merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both Balazs and Natroshvili disclose similar driver assistance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Balazs teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to fuse the at least one radar-based occupancy grid and the at least one camera-based occupancy grid to determine a fused occupancy grid (Balazs 0037 “The neural network 136 may be configured to process the first grid 132 provided by the first ISM and the second grid 134 provided by the second ISM to a fused grid 138.”).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 2, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balazs (US 20200377108) in view of Natroshvili et al. (US 20190049239 hereinafter Natroshvili) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Manz et al. (DE 102021113651 hereinafter Manz).
Regarding claim 2, Balazs teaches The apparatus of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Manz teaches
wherein to determine the dynamic occupancy grid the at least one processor is configured to: set the second velocity to a non-zero default velocity for each of the plurality of second cells occupied by an object classified as a vehicle; and set the second velocity to zero for each of the plurality of second cells that is either unoccupied or occupied by an object classified as a static object (p.7 “Furthermore, recognized obstacles or occupancies can also store attributes such as movable, non-movable, type classifier (vehicle, pedestrian, etc.), speeds, etc.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Manz with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Manz p.3). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Manz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Manz disclose similar driver assistance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balazs (US 20200377108) in view of Natroshvili et al. (US 20190049239 hereinafter Natroshvili) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhong et al. (US 20190120955 hereinafter Zhong).
Regarding claim 7, Balazs teaches The apparatus of claim 6,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zhong teaches
wherein the at least one processor is configured to fuse the at least one radar-based occupancy grid and the at least one camera-based occupancy grid only if most-recent available camera sensor data and most-recent available radar sensor data correspond to a same sensor data collection time interval (0031 “time aware camera radar fusion processing, the states of object tracking are timestamped, and inputs are time-gated. The timestamp associated with the kinematic model of an individual object is updated in response to a new input, when the timestamp associated with the new input is more recent than the timestamp for the kinematic model. When the timestamp associated with the new input is older than that of the kinematic model, out-of-order sensor inputs are detected. In one embodiment, outdated inputs are discarded. In other embodiments, the camera radar fusion model may buffer recent inputs and ensure the correctness of the kinematic model by enforcing temporally coherent integration processing”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zhong with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Zhong p.3). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zhong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Zhong disclose similar driver assistance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balazs (US 20200377108) in view of Natroshvili et al. (US 20190049239 hereinafter Natroshvili) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Giorgio et al. (US 20210131823 hereinafter Giorgio).
Regarding claim 8, Balazs teaches The apparatus of claim 6, wherein to fuse the at least one radar-based occupancy grid and the at least one camera-based occupancy grid, the at least one processor is configured to use, for a fused occupancy grid cell, a reference velocity of a reference occupancy grid cell, corresponding to the fused occupancy grid cell, based on (Abstract “fuse the processed first grid with the processed second grid into a fused grid”):(0086 “A camera grid is obtained by projecting the 3D bounding box of each camera object detection to a 2D ground plane, wherein these footprints are assumed to be occupied”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Giorgio teaches
a camera-based occupancy probability of a camera-based occupancy grid cell, corresponding to the reference occupancy grid cell, being greater than a reference occupancy probability of the reference occupancy grid cell (0159 “The “conflict” value may be calculated by subtracting probability values in cells of a map from the probability values in cells of a different map.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Giorgio with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system robustness (Giorgio 0243). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Giorgio merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Giorgio disclose similar driver assistance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Balazs teaches The apparatus of claim 6,
Balazs does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Natroshvili teaches
wherein the at least one processor is configured to set a dynamic probability of a fused occupancy grid cell of the fused occupancy grid to a non-zero value and a static probability of the fused occupancy grid cell of the fused occupancy grid to zero (0137 “at least one object includes at least one of a static grid cell, which is occupied by particles and have velocity of zero, or a dynamic grid cell, which is occupied by particles and has a velocity greater than zero.ells are associated with a respective velocity value.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Natroshvili with the teachings of Balazs. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system perception (Natroshvili 0063). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Natroshvili merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both Balazs and Natroshvili disclose similar driver assistance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Giorgio teaches
an indication that a camera-based occupancy probability corresponding to the fused occupancy grid cell was higher than a radar-based occupancy probability corresponding to the fused occupancy grid cell (0146 “a set of values indicatives of disagreement between pairs of sensors, e.g. resulting from subtracting the probability values of grid cells in a first sensor grid from the probability values of corresponding grid cells in a second sensor grid.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Giorgio with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system robustness (Giorgio 0243). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Giorgio merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Giorgio disclose similar driver assistance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Harrison (US PAT 12618945) discloses “Examples disclosed herein relate to a radar system in an autonomous vehicle for object detection and classification. The radar system has a radar module having a dynamically controllable beam steering antenna and a perception module. The perception module includes a machine learning module trained on a first set of data and retrained on a second set of data to generate a set of object locations and classifications, and a classifier to use velocity information combined with the set of object locations and classifications to output a set of classified data. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights