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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on March 23, 2026. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the claimed deviation condition requires comparing a first distance…at a first timing (fist scan) and a second distance…at a second timing (second scan) (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited claim does not require that the first timing and second timing be from two different scans, just that they occur at two different times.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Park does not disclose, teach, or suggest the deviation condition as claimed (Applicant’s Response, pg. 10), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Park discloses consecutive points having a constant slope in the Y-axis (i.e., is the horizontal distance from one point to the next the same). As the claim does not require that two timings be from two different scans, Park discloses determining the slope from a first point to a second and a second to a third and using the points that have the same horizontal distance.
Regarding applicant’s argument that using an acquisition-order index as a processing sequence does not evaluate, establish, or verify any spatial alignment between the projected positions of ranging points and the direction of cluster movement (Applicant’s Response, pg. 10), the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claim does not require the evaluation, establishing, or verification of spatial alignment between the projected position of ranging points and the direction of cluster movement. By indexing the road points in the order in which they are acquired is synonymous with the points be acquired in a moving direction as the points are being counted when they are acquired as the vehicle is moving.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on March 23, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 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.
In claim 1, line 7, and claim 7, line 8, the limitation “the ranging points” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if the ranging point previously recited on lines 3-4 is included in the ranging points or if it is a new set of ranging points.
In claim 2, lines 4-6, and claim 4, line 10, the limitation “the arrangement direction in which the positions are arranged” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the position of the reflection point previously recited in claim 1, line 3, position of the ranging point previously recited in claim 1, line 14, or position of something else.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0390608) in view of Pfeiffer (US 2023/0004744).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Park discloses an information processing method for an information processing device and an information processing device including a sensor configured to emit electromagnetic waves from an emission point to a predetermined range around a vehicle, to detect a position of a reflection point, which is a ranging point, based on reflected waves, and to generate point cloud data relating to the ranging point (Park, [0052] regarding acquiring a point cloud provided from a LiDAR sensor & [0054] regarding the LiDAR sensor sending a single circular laser pulse to the surrounding of the host vehicle to determine the distance from the LiDAR sensor to the object), and a controller configured to process data acquired from the sensor, comprising:
by using the controller,
generating a cluster made up of the ranging points that are within a predetermined distance from each other, based on the point cloud data (Park, [0060] regarding candidate points being detected from among the road points, [0058] regarding road points being selected from the point cloud & [0078] regarding storing the coordinates of the current point when the spacing distance between the current point and the previous point is shorter than the first threshold distance),
detecting a moving direction of the ranging point included in the cluster from a first timing to a second timing (Park, [0059] regarding the road points having sample indexes & [0074] regarding sample indexes being assigned to point in the order in which the points are acquired),
setting a height condition that a height of the ranging point included in the cluster from a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling is equal to or lower than a predetermined height at at least one of the first timing and the second timing (Park, [0075] regarding determining whether a height of the selected sample point is equal to or less than a threshold height),
setting an arrangement condition that the position of the ranging point included in the cluster projected onto the road surface is arranged along the moving direction at at least one of the first timing and the second timing (Park, [0073] regarding sample points being sequentially selected from among the road points in the order of the sample index & [0074] regarding sample indexes being assigned to point in the order in which the points are acquired),
setting a deviation condition that a difference between a first distance from the emission point to the cluster at the first timing and a second distance from the emission point to the cluster at the second timing is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value (Park, [0069] regarding multiple consecutive points being curb candidate points if the first slope is constant, [0067] regarding the first slope being the slope of a line segment formed by two arbitrary points in the first plane PL1 & [0064] regarding the first plane PL1 being the plane formed by the X-axis and the Y-axis. The points received are a measure of the distance from the LiDAR to the detection. By considering them curb candidate points when the slope between the two points is constant in the first plane is the same as saying the distance from the LiDAR to the detection is 0m in the Y-axis (i.e., determining the distance from the LiDAR to the first point (t0) and the distance from the LiDAR to the second point (t1) is less than a predetermined value.) (Pfeiffer, [0034] regarding quantizing the points into distance bins that are located laterally along the driving direction of the vehicle),
determining whether all of primary conditions including the height condition, the arrangement condition, and the deviation condition, are satisfied, and
recognizing the cluster as a curb on the road surface, in a case of determining that all of the primary conditions are satisfied (Park, [0006] regarding detecting a curb using a LiDAR sensor & [0209] regarding the final curb line fitting being performed using the curb points detected. By using the curb points to determine the final curb line fitting the height condition, arrangement condition, and deviation condition would have been satisfied as these checks are done to consider the points curb points).
Park does not explicitly disclose controlling at least one of a steering actuator, an accelerator pedal actuator, or a brake actuator of the vehicle based on a recognized curb.
Pfeiffer teaches controlling at least one of a steering actuator, an accelerator pedal actuator, or a brake actuator of the vehicle based on a recognized curb (Pfeiffer, [0098] regarding controlling a vehicle based on a curve that represents a curb & [0059] regarding the vehicle control including steering, propulsion, and braking).
Park and Pfeiffer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of curb detection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate controlling the steering, propulsion, and braking based on the recognized curb, as disclosed by Pfeiffer, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling the vehicle to stay on the road and not run into the curb.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Pfeiffer teaches the information processing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arrangement condition is an arrangement direction and recognizing the cluster as the curb on the road surface comprises, determining that the arrangement direction in which the positions are arranged at the first timing is equal to an arrangement direction in which the positions are arranged at the second timing (Park, [0073] regarding sample points being sequentially selected from among the road points in the order of the sample index & [0074] regarding sample indexes being assigned to point in the order in which the points are acquired).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Pfeiffer teaches the information processing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the height condition is a height of the ranging point and recognizing the cluster as the curb on the road surface comprises determining that the height of the ranging point included in the cluster at the first timing is same as a height of the ranging point included in the cluster at the second timing (Park, [0075] regarding determining whether the height of a selected sample point is equal to or less than the threshold height & [0078] regarding storing the coordinates of the current point when the spacing distance between the current point and the previous point is shorter than the first threshold distance. Thus, each point is being checked to verify its height is equal to the threshold height).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Pfeiffer teaches the information processing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein recognizing the cluster as the curb on the road surface, in a case of determining that all of the primary conditions are satisfied, comprises satisfying a following equation:
W
=
V
cos
(
θ
)
+
V
sin
(
θ
)
tan
(
θ
+
∅
)
where
V is a magnitude of a moving speed of the sensor,
θ is an angle between a direction in which the sensor moves and an arrangement direction in which the positions are arranged,
φ is an azimuth angle of the cluster relative to the sensor, and
W is a magnitude of the moving speed of the cluster (Park, Fig. 4 regarding the vehicle moving parallel with the received curb points. By moving parallel to the curb points, the angle between a direction in which the sensor moves and an arrangement direction of the position would be 0 resulting in the equation simplifying to W = V as cos(0) = 1 and sin(0) = 0.).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Pfeiffer teaches the information processing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining that all of the primary conditions are satisfied occurs after the vehicle accelerates or decelerates (Park, [0054] regarding determining the speed of the object using the LiDAR sensor. The speed of the object is relative to the LiDAR which is relative to the vehicle, thus the speed of the object is determined relative to the speed of the vehicle. Therefore, the primary conditions are determined at any speed of the vehicle which would be achieved after the vehicle accelerates from being stopped.).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Pfeiffer teaches the information processing method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
recognizing two or more clusters as the curb on the road surface, in a case of determining that all of the primary conditions are satisfied for the clusters (Park, Fig. 10 regarding detecting a continuous curb using a LiDAR sensor. By detecting a continuous curb, the process would be performed repeatedly resulting in multiple clusters being generated from the LiDAR point cloud data.).
Conclusion
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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights