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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 13, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the objection to claims 16, 26, 27, and 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to claims 16, 26, 27, and 29 correct the previously-raised informalities. Accordingly, the objection to claims 16, 26, 27, and 29 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 13, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 16-29 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to claims 16-29 correct the previously-raised indefiniteness concerns. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 16-29 has been withdrawn. However, the amendments to independent claims 16, 26, 27, and 29 introduce new concerns under 35 USC 112(b), as discussed further in the corresponding 35 USC 112(b) rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 13-14, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 16-24 and 26-29 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that each of the independent claims have been amended to positively recite controlling movement of the at least partially automated moving vehicle based on the associated point groups of the target quantity and the surrounding area information, thereby incorporating the abstract idea(s) into a practical application which is not capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 16-24 and 26-29 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 14-16, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) of independent claims 16, 26, 27, and 29 and their respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues that Macrae and Eade fail to teach or suggest “wherein the origin of the target coordinate system does not coincide with an origin of the origin coordinate system… wherein, as a result of the origin of the target coordinate system not coinciding with an origin of the origin coordinate system, at least one cell or grid point is assigned more than one point group” and “determining a target quantity of point groups visible from the specified viewing point in the surrounding area, wherein, for each cell or grid point assigned to more than one point group, only those point groups whose spacing from the origin of the target coordinate system exceeds the minimum spacing by more than a specified first threshold value are excluded from the target quantity, and those point groups whose spacing from the origin of the target coordinate system does not exceed the minimum spacing by more than the specified first threshold value are retained in the target quantity, and wherein those point groups assigned to cells or grid points to which only one point group is assigned are also retained in the target quantity”. In particular, Applicant argues that Macrae teaches away from the limitation “wherein, as a result of the origin of the target coordinate system not coinciding with an origin of the origin coordinate system, at least one cell or grid point is assigned more than one point group”, as “Macrae’s architecture structurally prevents this from ever occurring. Macrae’s step c) states: “If the assigned bucket already contains a vertex, the closest to the camera is retained and the further away is discarded.” In Macrae, the moment a second vertex would be assigned to an already-occupied bucket, the farther one is immediately and unconditionally discarded. The result is that no bucket in Macrae ever contains more than one vertex after the algorithm has completed”. The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s reasoning, as paragraph [0062] of Macrae makes it clear that “If the assigned bucket already contains a vertex, the closest to the camera is retained and the further away is discarded”. Therefore, Macrae fails to provide at least one cell or grid point being assigned to more than one point group. The Examiner is in agreement that Eade fails to cure these deficiencies.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) of independent claims 16, 26, 27, and 29 and their respective dependent claims has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “wherein, as a result of the origin of the target coordinate system not coinciding with the origin of the coordinate system, at least one cell or grid point is assigned more than one point group;” However, antecedent basis with respect to “the origin of the coordinate system” is unclear, as antecedent basis exists in the claim for both “the origin of the target coordinate system” and “the origin of the origin coordinate system”. Therefore, it is unclear which coordinate system origin is being referred to. For the purposes of this examination “the origin of the coordinate system” is being interpreted as “the origin of the origin coordinate system”. Further, claim 16 recites “determining a target quantity of point groups visible from the specified viewing point in the surrounding area,” However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 16 for “determining a target quantity of point groups visible from a specified viewing point in a surrounding area”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the second recitation of “determining a target quantity of point groups” is the same as the first recitation of “determining a target quantity of point groups”.
Claims 17-25 are dependent upon claim 16 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 17-25 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “an origin of the origin coordinate system”. However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 16, upon which claim 19 depends, for “an origin of the origin coordinate system”. Therefore, it is unclear whether “an origin of the origin coordinate system” of claim 29 is the same origin as the origin of the origin coordinate system of claim 16.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites “determine a target quantity of point groups visible from the specified viewing point in the surrounding area,” However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 26 for “determine a target quantity of point groups visible from a specified viewing point in a surrounding area” Therefore, it is unclear whether the second recitation of “determine a target quantity of point groups” is the same as the first recitation of “determine a target quantity of point groups”. Further, the claim recite “wherein, as a result of the origin of the target coordinate system not coinciding with an origin of the origin coordinate system,” However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 26 for “an origin of the origin coordinate system”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the second recitation of “an origin of the origin coordinate system” is the same origin as the first recitation of “an origin of the origin coordinate system”.
Claim 30 is dependent upon claim 26 and therefore inherits the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claim 30 is rejected under similar reasoning as claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites “wherein, as a result of the origin of the target coordinate system not coinciding with an origin of the origin coordinate system, at least one cell or grid point is assigned more than one point group;” However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 27 for “an origin of the origin coordinate system” Therefore, it is unclear whether the second recitation of “an origin of the origin coordinate system” is the same origin as the first recitation of “an origin of the origin coordinate system”.
Claims 28 and 31 are dependent upon claim 27 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 28 and 31 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 27 above.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “determining a target quantity of group points visible from the specified viewing point in the surrounding area,” However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 29 for “determining a target quantity of point groups visible from a specified viewing point in a surrounding area” Therefore, it is unclear whether the second recitation of “determining a target quantity of point groups” is the same as the first recitation of “determining a target quantity of point groups”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-31 are presently rejected under 35 USC 112(b), but are nevertheless directed to allowable subject matter and would be allowable if amended to overcome the present 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 16, the claim recites in part “providing the quantity of point groups in the surrounding area with coordinates in an origin coordinate system; transforming the coordinates of the quantity of point groups into spherical coordinates in a target coordinate system, wherein the viewing point in the surrounding area lies in an origin of the target coordinate system, and wherein the origin of the target coordinate system does not coincide with an origin of the origin coordinate system; determining a spherically curved grid in spherical coordinates in the target coordinate system, wherein the grid includes grid points or cells; assigning each point group of at least some of the quantity to a cell in the grid or a grid point in the grid, wherein, as a result of the origin of the target coordinate system not coinciding with the origin of the coordinate system, at least one cell or grid point is assigned more than one point group; for each of at least some of the cells of the grid or for each of at least some of the grid points of the grid assigned to more than one point group: determining a minimum spacing based on spacings of the point groups from the origin of the target coordinate system… wherein, for each cell or grid point assigned to more than one point group, only those point groups whose spacing from the origin of the target coordinate system exceeds the minimum spacing by more than a specified first threshold value are excluded from the target quantity, and those point groups whose spacing from the origin of the target coordinate system does not exceed the minimum spacing by more than the specified first threshold value are retained in the target quantity, and wherein those point groups assigned to cells or grid points to which only one point group is assigned are also retained in the target quantity…”
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, each of the above-recited limitations.
Macrae and Eade are considered the closest prior art of record. Macrae in particular provides determining a target quantity of point groups visible from a specified viewing point in a surrounding area from a quantity of point groups in at least [0008]-[0013]. Macrae generates a plurality of “buckets” (i.e., point groups) which may correspond to the number of pixels in a spherical image or a multiple or sub-multiple thereof, wherein each vertex (i.e., point) in the source point cloud is evaluated and assigned to a bucket based on the horizontal and vertical angles between the vertex and the camera position (see at least [0057]-[0061]). However, as discussed in the Response to Arguments above, Macrae fails to provide at least one cell or grid point being assigned to more than one point group, at least because paragraph [0062] of Macrae makes it clear that “If the assigned bucket already contains a vertex, the closest to the camera is retained and the further away is discarded”. Therefore, Macrae teaches away from the limitation “wherein, as a result of the origin of the target coordinate system not coinciding with an origin of the origin coordinate system, at least one cell or grid point is assigned more than one point group”, as the system of Macrae would not result in a cell or grid point being assigned to more than one point group. As a consequence, Macrae fails to teach or suggest subsequent claim limitations dependent upon the at least one cell or grid point being assigned more than one point group. Moreover, Macrae is not concerned with whether an origin of the target coordinate system coincides with an origin of the origin coordinate system. Eade fails to cure these deficiencies.
Kanzawa is considered the next closest prior art of record and discloses systems and methods for reducing LiDAR points in an image. Kanzawa teaches that a specified first threshold value depends on a minimum spacing multiplied by a respective factor in at least [0049] and [0050], wherein “At 720, the reduction module 220 determines a minimum distance for the points 285 associated with the cell. The reduction module 220 may inspect the distances calculated at 710, and may select the minimum distance from among the calculated distances” and “At 730, the reduction module 220 calculates the threshold 293 for the cell based on the minimum distance. The reduction module 220 may calculate the threshold 293 for the cell such that a cell with a low minimum distance receives a lower threshold 293 than a cell with a high minimum distance. The threshold 293 may be proportional to the calculated minimum distance.” However, as with Macrae, Kanzawa fails to provide the feature “as a result of the origin of the target coordinate system not coinciding with the origin of the coordinate system, at least one cell or grid point is assigned more than one point group;” Paragraph [0028] of Kanzawa teaches that “each cell of the grid 287 may capture or include a plurality of points… Each point 280 may be included in one cell of the grid… and each cell may include multiple points…” That is, Kanzawa likewise fails to teach or suggest at least one cell or grid point being assigned more than one point group as a result of the origin of the target coordinate system not coinciding with the origin of the [origin] coordinate system.
Additional search and consideration proved unfruitful, yielding no results which teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, the above-discussed features of claim 16.
Independent claims 26, 27, and 29 have been amended to recite features parallel to those discussed above with respect to claim 16. Accordingly, independent claims 26, 27, and 29 are likewise considered to be directed to allowable subject matter under similar reasoning as claim 16 discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dickmann et al. (US 2006/0023917 A1) teaches an object detection method for vehicles which utilizes a grid having cells, wherein an incremental dimension of the grid cells increases at least over one partial region of the grid, with increasing radial distance from the sensor (see at least [0037]). Qiu et al. (US 2020/0124725 A1) teaches navigable region recognition and topology matching, including identifying a subset of a plurality of scanning points (see at least [0005]), and utilizing grids based on a polar coordinate system (see at least [0036]-[0038]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
