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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "10" and "18" have both been used to designate the AOZ. (See at least detailed description paragraph 0002.)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “12” has been used to designate the remote platform, central unit, remote system, remote unit, and back office. (See at least detailed disclosure paragraphs 00014 and 00016 and background paragraph 0002.)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate the detected objects, unexpected objects, and candidate unexpected object. (See at least detailed disclosure paragraph 00020.)
The drawings are objected to because reference character “20” is referred to in the specification as some kind of object but is drawn as a line of communication in at least Figure 1A. Reference character “20” is distinctly and differently drawn than the remainder of the objects drawn (14, 16, 18a-d, and 24), not resembling an object whatsoever. It appears that this may be a citation mistake in the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “14”, “16”, and “18” have been used to designate both the detected objects and expected objects.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 18. Examiner notes while 18a-18d are in the drawings, 18 is not.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “24” has been used to designate both the object and sensing subsystem. (See at least detailed disclosure paragraphs 0039 and 0052.)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “26” has been used to designate both the object location correlating system and perception subsystem. (See at least summary paragraph 0042 and detailed disclosure paragraph 0016.)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 52 and 70. Examiner notes that there appears to be a typo in detailed disclosure paragraph 00018 line 3 wherein the examiner believes 50 should be 52 to overcome part of this objection.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is 156 words long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Paragraph numbers do not include the first paragraph amended into the specification on 8/8/2024.
Paragraph numbers spontaneously restart at the beginning of the Brief Description of the Drawings section.
Terminology is not consistently utilized with regards to the drawings (see drawing objections above).
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 14, 22, 23, and 25 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 reads "receiving in real-time data" which appears to be a typographical or punctuation error and should read "receiving real-time data" or "receiving, in real-time, data" to improve clarity.
Claim 8 line 9 reads "the determine location" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "the determined location" to improve clarity.
Claim 10 line 4 reads "base on" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "based on" to improve clarity.
Claim 12 line 3 reads "or wherein" which appears to be contradictory since or indicates another option and wherein indicates a continuation of the previous option and should read "or" to improve clarity.
Claim 14 line 4 reads "characteristics of the object" appears to be confusing provided antecedent basis to “each detected object” since it is unclear which object of the collection of detected objects is “the object” and therefore should read "characteristics of an object", "characteristics of each object", or " characteristics of the objects" to improve clarity and consistency.
Claim 14 line 9 reads "for an object", but the object already has antecedent basis in the claim. This instead should read "for the object" to improve clarity. Please consider corrections to claim 14 line 4 when making corrections to claim 14 line 9 as well. Antecedent basis for the object in both lines should be aligned and clear.
Claim 18 line 4 reads "method", but the method already has antecedent basis due to dependency. This instead should read "the method" to improve clarity and consistency.
Claim 22 line 6 reads "a method", but the method already has antecedent basis due to dependency. This instead should read "the method" to improve clarity and consistency.
Claim 23 line 2 reads "an AOZ", but the AOZ already has antecedent basis due to dependency. This instead should read "the AOZ" to improve clarity and consistency.
Claim 23 line 2 reads “system comprise” which appears to be a conjugation error and should read “system comprises” to improve clarity.
Claim 25 line 1 "a vehicle", but the vehicle already has antecedent basis due to dependency. This instead should read "the autonomous vehicle" to improve clarity and consistency.
Claim 25 line 2 reads "an autonomous operating zone, AOZ, ", but the AOZ already has antecedent basis due to dependency. This instead should read "the AOZ" to improve clarity and consistency.
Claim 25 line 7 reads "an ego-position", but the position already has antecedent basis due to dependency. This instead should read "the ego-position" to improve clarity and consistency.
Claim 25 line 7 reads "an object location correlating system", but the system already has antecedent basis due to dependency. This instead should read "the object location correlating system" to improve clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“AOZ” is being interpreted and hereinafter is meant to mean an “autonomous operating zone”.
“ADS” is being interpreted and hereinafter is meant to mean an “automated driving system”.
“A number” is interpreted as meaning “one or more” in light of at least summary paragraph 0007: “a number of one or more autonomous vehicles”. Here, it is clear that the number must, at minimum, be one if the total quantity of vehicles, at minimum, is one.
“Type” and “role” are interpreted as a classification of an object.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 4, the "central unit" in the limitation "central unit configured to receive reports from vehicles operating in the AOZ" invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the reception of reports.
In claim 23, the "remote unit" in the limitation "a remote unit configured to monitor an AOZ" invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the monitoring of an AOZ.
In claim 25, the "control system" in the limitation "control system is configured, responsive to the ADS detecting an object, to: generate object position information" invokes 112(f) as "system" is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the generation of position information.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the central unit and remote unit, review of the specification does not explicitly disclose any explicitly recited structure. (See 112(b) rejection below.) It is unclear if the remote unit and central unit are the same unit as drawing reference 12 is used in the specification to indicate both units, but there is not structure for the “central unit” or “remote unit” recited on the drawings. (See drawing and specification objections above for more details on use or reference number 12.) For the purpose of examination and under the assumption that all aspects referred to with the drawing reference 12 are indeed meant to be the same element, both the central unit and remote unit will be assumed to contain the processors, memory, and other data storage recited in Figure 2 for the remote system 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the control system, review of the specification (paragraph 0049) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"Another, sixth aspect of the disclosed technology comprises a control system or circuitry for a vehicle having an automated driving system, ADS, the control system or circuitry comprising memory, one or more processors or processing circuitry, and computer-program code which, when loaded from memory and executed by the one or more processors causes the control system to implement a method according the first aspect or any disclosed embodiments and/or of any other method disclosed herein."
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 2, 4, 8, 10, 17, 21, and 23-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the type" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the remoted timing information" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of one or more other vehicles" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of vehicles" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the number of other vehicles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the site" in line 5 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the vicinity" in lines 6, 8, 10, and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “vicinity” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close is considered close enough to be considered in the vicinity of an object. Is this a detectable vicinity around the object (i.e. an area in which a vehicle can physically observe the object)? Is this a set radius around the object (e.g. 10 meters)? Does the vicinity size change depend on the object classification? All this is unclear and therefore the term is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, vicinity will be interpreted as a detectable vicinity around the object.
Regarding claim 24, it is unclear if the vehicle recited in line 2 is the vehicle in claim 1 or is another vehicle altogether similar to claim 4. Clarity is required to overcome this rejection by either amending claim 24 to read “the vehicle” or “another vehicle”.
Regarding claim 25, the limitation “cause the object position information to be sent over a wireless communications link using the wireless communications capability of the vehicle to an object location correlating system” in claim 25 appears to be contradictory with the prior limitation “an object location correlating entity: receiving in real-time data from an autonomous vehicle operating in the AOZ, the real-time data comprising a report including an ego-position of the vehicle, one or more positions and/or poses of objects detected by the vehicle” in claim 1 particularly because the object position information of claim 25 comprises “information from which an ego-position of the vehicle and a relative position and/or pose of the object to the vehicle can be determined”. That is, claim 1 requires actual positional information to be received, but claim 25, which indirectly depends on claim 1, only fundamentally transmits raw sensor data. This distinction makes it unclear how actual positional information is meant to be received at the correlating system if only information that can be used to determine said information is sent. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, actual positional information, i.e. ego-position and a relative position and/or pose of the object to the vehicle, will be interpreted as transmitted to the correlating system.
Regarding claims 4 and 23, claim limitations “central unit” and “remote unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As written, there is no clear explicit structure within the specification for these limitations. Further, due to the many errors in the specification (see drawing and specification objections above) it is unclear if these units are meant to be the same component or are indeed meant to be different. They share the same drawing callout 12, but the location in the drawings with quantifiable structure of callout 12 is labeled “remote system” which is further unclear if this is the same as these units. Due to lack of clarity and apparent inconsistency of the specification, the limitations are indefinite. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-18, and 21-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following:
determining a detected object location for each detected object based on the reported vehicle ego-position and reported detected object position relative to the vehicle ego-position;
determining a correlation for each determined object location with one or more expected object locations in the AOZ; and
determining if the object is an expected object or unexpected object at the determined object location based on the correlation meeting a correlation condition.
The limitation recited above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a plurality of vehicles and sensors, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Further, the object location correlating entity is broadly claimed such that a human operator can foreseeably be the final location of the received data. For example, a teleoperator may mentally, or with pen and paper, convert relative coordinates to absolute coordinates based on received object coordinates relative to a vehicle and vehicle absolute coordinates (a), compare the object coordinates with a map containing coordinates of known objects in the area such as street signs (b), and determine that the object is one of the known objects shown on the map based on the comparison (c). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the vehicles and sensors is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic element(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic element cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitation(s) of receiving data are insignificant extra pre-solution activities of mere data reception. Mere data reception cannot form an inventive concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the vehicle and sensors are recited generically as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The limitation of receiving positional data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the reception of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. Further, if the reception is interpreted as obtaining data from memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the retrieval of data from memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8, 10-12, 14-18, and 21-25 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8, 10-12, and 15-18 recite additional aspects of the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 22-24 recite additional generically claimed elements that merely apply the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites additional aspects of the abstract idea and additional generically claimed elements that merely apply the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites additional aspects of the abstract idea and additional insignificant extra pre-solution activity of mere data reception.
Claim 21 recites insignificant extra-post solution activity of providing an alert to an operator. This is generically claimed such that it includes the well understood, routine, and convention function of mere display (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and the cases cited therein). The other actions do recite additional elements that implement the abstract idea into a practical application, but due to only one of these actions being required, the claim is still rejected under 101. To overcome the 101 rejection, examiner recommends amending claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 21 except for the alerting limitation.
Claim 25 recites additional aspects of the abstract idea, additional generically claimed elements that merely apply the abstract idea, and addition insignificant extra post solution activity of mere data transmission (see above).
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 12, 16, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson et al. US 20180136644 A1 (hereinafter Levinson) in view of Fang et al. US 20200082619 A1 (hereinafter Fang).
Regarding claim 1, Levinson teaches a computer implemented method for monitoring an autonomous operating zone, AOZ, including a number of one or more autonomous vehicles (Figure 1 shows an area where multiple vehicles operate; abstract discloses multiple autonomous vehicles), each vehicle with sensors (paragraph 0058 discloses a variety of vehicle sensors, including lidar and GPS sensors) arranged to detect an ego-position of the vehicle (paragraph 0059 discloses receiving positioning data such as GPS data) and relative positions of surrounding objects (paragraph 0051 discloses detecting objects relative to a vehicle), the method comprising at an object location correlating entity (paragraph 0126 discloses a memory, processor, and instructions to perform the method):
receiving in real-time data [SIC] (paragraph 0060 discloses vehicle data is real-time) from an autonomous vehicle operating in the AOZ (paragraphs 0060-0061 discloses receiving vehicle sensor data), the real-time data comprising a report including an ego-position of the vehicle (paragraph 0059 discloses receiving positioning data such as GPS data), one or more positions and/or poses of objects detected by the vehicle (paragraph 0051 discloses detecting objects relative to a vehicle);
responsive to receiving the report:
determining a detected object location for each detected object (paragraph 0061 discloses determining object locations based on sensor data);
determining a correlation for each determined object location with one or more expected object locations in the AOZ (paragraph 0066 discloses matching detected environmental features with map data; paragraph 0067 discloses distinguishing objects from environmental features); and
determining if the object is an expected object or unexpected object at the determined object location based on the correlation meeting a correlation condition (paragraph 0066 discloses determining if features match or don't with a map; paragraph 0067 discloses classifying objects into static and dynamic and determining that an object may be a safety risk; see also paragraph 0138 wherein objects can be classified as unknown; examiner understands that non-matched, unknown, dynamic, or safety risk objects may be considered equivalent to unexpected objects and matched, static, or known objects may be considered equivalent to expected objects).
Levinson does not explicitly teach determining a detected object location for each detected object based on the reported vehicle ego-position and reported detected object position relative to the vehicle ego-position. While this may be implicit through the reception of sensor data which has been shown to include vehicle position and object relative position, for the purpose of completeness of record, Fang will be utilized to teach this limitation.
Fang teaches receiving a report including an ego-position of the vehicle (paragraph 0030 discloses obtaining absolute coordinates of a vehicle), one or more positions and/or poses of objects detected by the vehicle (paragraph 0030 discloses obtaining object coordinates relative to a vehicle);
responsive to receiving the report:
determining a detected object location for each detected object based on the reported vehicle ego-position and reported detected object position relative to the vehicle ego-position (paragraph 0030 discloses determining absolute coordinates of the object based on vehicle coordinates and relative coordinates of the object).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Fang such that the object location determination of Levinson can further be a transformation of object relative location into object absolute location as taught by Fang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve understandability of the object location when considered from perspectives other than the vehicle which detects the object.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches classifying the type of detected object at the determined object location (paragraphs 0066-0067 discloses classifying objects/environment features as static or dynamic); and
disregarding the detected object from subsequent monitoring of the AOZ dependent on the classified type of the detected object (paragraph 0066 discloses disregarding dynamic objects when performing map generation; paragraph 0061 also discloses that objects labelled as static mayor are not described in map data which examiner also considers equivalent to disregarding for monitoring).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches that the object location correlating entity comprises one or more other autonomous vehicles operating in the AOZ (paragraph 0138 discloses sensor data may be received and processed by vehicles in a network or another network) and/or a central unit (paragraph 0126 discloses a memory and processor to perform the method; see also claim 1 “one or more processors”) configured to receive reports from vehicles operating in the AOZ (paragraph 0138 discloses sensor data may be received and processed by an external resource).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches that determining the correlation comprises comparing each determined detected object location with one or more expected object locations in the AOZ (paragraph 0066 discloses comparing environmental features with map data) retrieved from a data store of expected static object locations (paragraph 0066 discloses map data is in a map data repository; see also paragraph 0103 which discloses a static object map), wherein if the determined detected object location meets the correlation condition, the detected object is classified as an expected static object at that location in the AOZ (paragraph 0066 discloses comparison to determine if features match the map data wherein typically static features are matched and dynamic are non-matched; examiner further understands that a match with the static object map of paragraph 0103 would carry a classification of the object as static).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches that determining the correlation comprises: comparing in real-time (paragraph 0060 discloses localizer operates in real time) the determined detected object location with one or more expected object locations in the AOZ (paragraph 0066 discloses localizer compares environmental features with map data) and wherein the one or more expected object locations are locations of one or more vehicles reported in real-time by the one or more vehicles (paragraph 0066 discloses comparison to determine if features match the map data).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches that the correlation is determined by:
determining the location in the AOZ of each detected object (paragraph 0061 discloses determining object locations based on sensor data);
based on the reported timing information for each detected object, determining locations of moving actors in the AOZ (paragraph 0103 discloses tracking objects wherein objects are associated with being detected in one frame at one time and in a second frame at a second time indicating sensor data comprises time information; paragraph 0103 further details probabilistic tracking of objects i.e. probability of location information for objects including those classified as dynamic and creating dynamic object maps); and
comparing the determined location of each detected object in the AOZ at the time of its detection by the vehicle with the determined location at that time of one or more moving actors in the AOZ (paragraph 0066 discloses matching environmental features with map data; paragraph 0103 discloses dynamic object maps), wherein if the determined location of a detected object in the AOZ at the time the object was detected correlates with the determine location of a moving actor at that time in the AOZ, the detected object is classified as an expected moving actor in the AOZ (paragraph 0066 discloses matching environmental features with map data; examiner understands if a feature matches on the dynamic object map of paragraph 0103, then it would be classified as a dynamic object).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches that the report includes timing information for when each object was detected by the vehicle (paragraph 0103 discloses tracking objects wherein objects are associated with being detected in one frame at one time and in a second frame at a second time indicating sensor data comprises time information) or wherein timing information for when each object was detected by the vehicle is determined by the object location correlating entity based on a time when the real-time data report including the detected object was received by the correlating entity.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches determining a confidence score for a detected object to be an unexpected object (paragraph 0067 discloses determining a likelihood that an object may interfere with the vehicle's path, i.e. be a safety risk; paragraph 0083 also discloses determining confidence levels associated with object classifications).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches that responsive to determining a detected object is an unexpected object, the method further comprises performing an action (paragraph 0071 discloses reaction to an object determined to affect a planned path, i.e. a safety risk) comprising one or more of the following:
generating an alert to an operator in the AOZ (paragraph 0071 discloses that if an object is determined to affect a planned path, i.e. a safety risk, a teleoperator is requested for an updated trajectory);
causing one or more autonomous vehicles operating on the site to shut-down or restrict or pause or slow operation in the AOZ (paragraph 0052 discloses providing an area where driving must be avoided responsive to a vehicle detecting an object obscuring a path) or in a sub-area of the AOZ comprising at least the vicinity of the unexpected object in the AOZ;
shutting down all ADS in the AOZ or in a subarea of the AOZ in the vicinity of the detected object;
restricting operation in the entire AOZ, or only in the vicinity of the detected object to only allow operation by a vehicle having an ADS with a certain subset of functionality implemented; and
closing down a sub-area of the AOZ in the vicinity of the detected object and divert operations to other parts of the site to avoid the sub-area in the vicinity of the detected object.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches an object location correlating system comprising:
memory (paragraph 0126 "memory");
one or more processors (paragraph 0126 "processor"; see also at least claims 1 and 31 "one or more processors") or processing circuitry;
computer-program code stored in the memory, which, when loaded from the memory and executed by the one or more processors or processing circuitry causes the object location correlating system to perform the method (paragraph 0126 discloses instructions stored on the memory that, when executed by the processor, performs an operation of the method; see also at least claims 1 and 31).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 22 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches that the object location correlating system comprises a remote unit (paragraph 0126 discloses a memory, processor, and instructions to perform the method; see also at least claims 1 and 31 "one or more processors") configured to monitor an AOZ (paragraph 0138 discloses sensor data may be received and processed by an external resource; see at least paragraphs 0066-0067 for what processing entails).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 22 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches that the object location correlating system comprises a vehicle operating in the AOZ (paragraph 0138 discloses sensor data may be received and processed by vehicles in a network or another network).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 22 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches a vehicle (abstract "vehicle") configured to operate in an autonomous operating zone, AOZ (Figure 1 shows an area where multiple vehicles operate), the vehicle comprising:
an automated driving system, ADS (abstract "autonomous vehicles"; autonomous vehicles inherently contain an automated driving system to perform autonomous driving);
a control system (paragraph 0126 discloses a memory, processor, and instructions to perform the method; see also at least claims 1 and 31 "one or more processors"); and
a wireless communications capability (Figure 33 discloses a communication interface 3313 connected to a network on a vehicle's 3391 computer 3390a; see also paragraphs 0125-0126 for details of wireless communication), wherein the control system is configured, responsive to the ADS detecting an object (paragraph 0051 discloses detecting objects relative to a vehicle), to:
generate object position information comprising information from which an ego-position of the vehicle (paragraph 0059 discloses receiving positioning data such as GPS data) and a relative position and/or pose of the object to the vehicle can be determined (paragraph 0051 discloses detecting objects relative to a vehicle), and
cause the object position information to be sent over a wireless communications link using the wireless communications capability of the vehicle to an object location correlating system (paragraph 0138 discloses sensor data can be transmitted to be processed by an external resource).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson as modified by Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komoriya US 20250136128 A1 (hereinafter Komoriya).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levinson does not teach responsive to determining the location in the AOZ of a detected object, checking if the determined location is within a sub-area of the AOZ excluded from monitoring for unexpected objects, and if so, disregarding the detected object in subsequent monitoring of the AOZ.
Komoriya teaches responsive to determining the location in the AOZ of a detected object, checking if the determined location is within a sub-area of the AOZ excluded from monitoring for unexpected objects (Figure 5B S012 discloses determining if a detect target is within an exclusion area), and if so, disregarding the detected object in subsequent monitoring of the AOZ (Figure 5B discloses that if a target is within an exclusion area S012 and moving away from the vehicle S013, then the target is excluded from object processing and determination S014).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Komoriya such that the object detection of Levinson can further determine areas to exclude from object detection and processing as taught by Komoriya. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce processing associated with object processing as disclosed in Komoriya (paragraph 0008).
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson as modified by Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horihata et al. US 20230120095 A1 (hereinafter Horihata).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches determining a confidence score for each detected object determined to be an unexpected object at the determined location (paragraph 0067 discloses determining a likelihood that an object may interfere with the vehicle's path, i.e. be a safety risk; paragraph 0083 also discloses determining confidence levels associated with object classifications).
Levinson does not teach determining a confidence score for each detected object determined to be an unexpected object at the determined location based on the number of one or more other vehicles of the plurality of vehicles which have also detected an object at that determined location in the AOZ.
Horihata teaches determining a confidence score for each detected object determined to be an unexpected object at the determined location based on the number of one or more other vehicles of the plurality of vehicles which have also detected an object at that determined location in the AOZ (paragraph 0233 discloses determining an actual existence probability of an object based on a number of vehicles reporting object existence and performing avoidance actions in response to object detection; examiner understands an object that must be avoided as equivalent to an unexpected object; see also paragraph 0234).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Horihata such that the confidence measure of Levinson can further be based on confidence of actual object's existence based on the number of vehicles reporting detection of the object as taught by Horihata. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of probability and object determination by relying on aggregated data from a plurality of vehicles.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 16 as detailed above.
Levinson does not teach that the confidence score increases depending on the number of other vehicles that also reported they had detected the unexpected object at that location in the AOZ.
Horihata teaches determining the confidence score increases depending on the number of other vehicles that also reported they had detected the unexpected object at that location in the AOZ (paragraph 0233 discloses determining an actual existence probability of an obstacle with the probability increases as a number of vehicles reporting object existence and performing avoidance actions in response to object detection increases; examiner understands an object that must be avoided as equivalent to an unexpected object; see also paragraph 0234).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Horihata such that the confidence measure of Levinson can further be based on confidence of actual object's existence based on the number of vehicles reporting detection of the object as taught by Horihata. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of probability and object determination by relying on aggregated data from a plurality of vehicles.
Claim(s) 11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson as modified by Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 20210122364 A1 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches processing for at least one detected object reported in a received report, object behavioural information (paragraph 0061 discloses processing typical behavior pattern information of an object to determine if it is a safety risk).
Levinson does not teach that the correlating comprises comparing the object behavioural information with expected behavioural information for one or more expected actors in the AOZ, and wherein the at least one detected object is classified as an unexpected object and/or as an object having unexpected behaviour in the AOZ if the behaviour of the detected object does not match the behaviour of an expected object in the AOZ.
Lee teaches processing for at least one detected object reported in a received report, object behavioural information (paragraph 0195 discloses estimating an object's movement based on object information), wherein the correlating comprises comparing the object behavioural information with expected behavioural information for one or more expected actors in the AOZ (paragraph 0195 discloses monitoring object movement and comparing the movement to normal movement for the object), and wherein the at least one detected object is classified as an unexpected object (paragraph 0195 discloses determining that an object may be a threatening object if its behavior is abnormal) and/or as an object having unexpected behaviour in the AOZ if the behaviour of the detected object does not match the behaviour of an expected object in the AOZ.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Lee such that threatening object detection of Levinson can be improved by further comparing normal behavior and real behavior of an object as disclosed in Lee. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for advanced collision prevention and/or minimization of collision damage by using behavior comparison to determine if collision avoidance action is needed as disclosed in Lee (paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches and generating a behavioural pattern for that period of time for the detected object (paragraph 0061 discloses processing typical behavior pattern information of an object to determine if it is a safety risk).
Levinson does not teach receiving object behavioural information representing one or more movement, position, and/or pose characteristics of the object at one or more locations reported by a vehicle in the AOZ over a period of time; and generating a behavioural pattern for that period of time for the detected object based on the received behavioural information, wherein the correlating comprises determining if the generated behavioural pattern correlates with a stored behaviour pattern comprising expected movement characteristics, positions and poses for an object at the detected one or more locations.
Lee teaches receiving object behavioural information representing one or more movement (paragraph 0195 discloses processing object information; paragraph 0192 discloses object information may include movement of the object), position (paragraph 0192 discloses object information includes distance between object and the vehicle), and/or pose characteristics of the object at one or more locations reported by a vehicle in the AOZ (paragraph 0192 discloses object information includes traveling direction of the object) over a period of time (paragraph 0193-0194 discloses object information evaluation for a set period of, e.g., 0.1 seconds); and
generating a behavioural pattern for that period of time for the detected object based on the received behavioural information (paragraph 0195 discloses estimating/predicting movement of the object based on object information), wherein the correlating comprises determining if the generated behavioural pattern correlates with a stored behaviour pattern (paragraph 0195 discloses lane information, used in comparison of normal and abnormal movement wherein normal movement is movement according to lane information, is received from a server indicating the information was "stored" on the server) comprising expected movement characteristics, positions and poses for an object at the detected one or more locations (paragraph 0195 discloses an example of a comparison to normal movement being movement according to lane information; examiner understands lane information subjugates positioning, poses, and movement; see also paragraph 0196 for an example of normal lane changing movement).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Lee such that threatening object detection of Levinson can be improved by further comparing normal behavior and real behavior of an object as disclosed in Lee. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for advanced collision prevention and/or minimization of collision damage by using behavior comparison to determine if collision avoidance action is needed as disclosed in Lee (paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above. Levinson further teaches that the object behavioural information includes information representing a role of the object (paragraph 0061 discloses determining object classification such as bicyclist wherein behavior pattern includes typical behavior for the classified object).
Levinson does not teach determining if the monitored movement characteristics and position of the moving object match expected movement characteristics and positions for the role of the object.
Lee further teaches determining if the monitored movement characteristics and position of the moving object match expected movement characteristics and positions for the role of the object (paragraphs 0195-0196 disclose comparison of object movement with normal movement wherein examples are provided of normal movement being dependent on lane information; examiner understands lane information subjugates positioning and movement style; examiner further understands objects subject to rules related to lane information would be required to fulfil a role of a vehicle of some kind).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Levinson to incorporate the further teachings of Lee such that objects classified as vehicular objects of Levinson can have their movement compared with the expected movement according to lane information as taught by Lee. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for advanced collision prevention and/or minimization of collision damage by using behavior comparison to determine if collision avoidance action is needed as disclosed in Lee (paragraph 0007).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson as modified by Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. JP 2021114094 A (hereinafter Suzuki; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Levinson reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Levinson does not teach that the correlation condition for the location of the detected object to match a location of an expected object comprises the correlation exceeding a minimum amount of correlation, and wherein method further comprises: configuring the minimum amount of correlation for the AOZ.
Suzuki teaches that the correlation condition for the location of the detected object to match a location of an expected object comprises the correlation exceeding a minimum amount of correlation (paragraph 0028 discloses matching an object detected by sensors and an object registered in data wherein judgement for the match is based on if the matching degree exceeds a predetermined threshold).
While Suzuki does not explicitly teach configuring the minimum amount of correlation for the AOZ, since the threshold is actively utilized after predetermination, some configuration step must exist for the predetermined threshold to exist even if the configuration step is a mere retrieval of a stored value from memory for utilization in the method. Therefore, Suzuki is further applicable to this limitation as well.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki such that the matching of Levinson can further utilize the predetermined threshold of Suzuki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of matching.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khadloya et al. US 20190259284 A1 discloses excluding a region from object detection.
Long US 20180259966 A1 discloses detecting anomalous events and transmitting road changes to a tower.
Takagi US 8744744 B2 discloses detecting a vehicle position and an object relative position and converting the relative position of the object into absolute coordinates.
Dalmasso et al. WO 2021144772 A1 discloses obtaining data from vehicles, determining anomalous events, and generating alerts in reaction.
Zhou et al. CN 110766061 A discloses determining that a similarity between two pictures containing objects exceeds a threshold; then performing mapping between the objects in the two pictures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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 Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669