DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
In claim(s) 1-11, the preamble is interpreted by the Office as a limitation on the claims, since the preamble is referred back to in the body of the claim: Claim 1, line 5 recites “the environment”, following “an environment” in the preamble in lines 1-2.
In claim(s) 9-11, the preamble is interpreted by the Office as a limitation on the claims, since the preamble is referred back to in the body of the claim: Claim 9, line 3 recites “said physical bodies”, following “physical bodies” in the preamble in line 1.
See In re Fought, 2019 USPQ2d 422062: "We have repeatedly held a preamble limiting when it serves as antecedent basis for a term appearing in the body of a claim.".
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 because of the following informalities:
(a) In claim 1, lines 20-21, “the one or more regions of interest” should be replaced by --the at least one region of interest-- to be consistent with the language in line 16-17. The remaining claims are dependent upon claim 1.
(b) In claim 10, line 4, “physical bodies” should be replaced by --said physical bodies-- since “physical bodies” was previously recited claim 9, line 1. Claim 11 depends upon claim 10.
(c) In claim 11, line 1, "or" should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶:
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard as the invention.
(a) The claims are is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. Particularly, the claims are very inconsistent in the usage of singulars and plurals, and in the usage of proper antecedent basis, thus making the meaning of the claims unclear. Non-exhaustive examples include:
(i) Claim 1, line 4 recites "a sensor", but then in lines 7-8 there are a plurality of sensors, one for each distance measurement. The remaining claims are dependent upon claim 1.
(ii) Claim 1, line 4 recites "an acquisition sequence", but then line 18 recites "one of said acquisition sequences" followed by line 21 reciting "said acquisition sequence". The remaining claims are dependent upon claim 1.
(iii) Claim 1, lines 7-8 recites "applying, to each of said distance measurements, an inverse model (MIN) of the corresponding sensor". Then claim 6, line 2, recites "said inverse sensor models (MIN)", which should read --said inverse model (MIN) of the corresponding sensor-- to match the language in claim 1. However, claim 7, line 2 reads "the inverse model of the sensor", which aside from using slightly different language from the first recitation in claim 1, is singular, but it is unclear if it is reference to each inverse model (MIN) of the corresponding sensor, or to a particular inverse model (MIN) of the corresponding sensor. The remaining claims are dependent upon claim 1.
(iv) Claim 9, line 3 recites "one or more sensors". Then claim 10, lines 1-2 recites "one or more distance sensors". However, claim 10 does not relate the distance sensors to the sensors of parent claim 9. Presumably, "one or more distance sensors" should read --one or more distance sensors of the one or more sensors--.
(b) In claim 1, line 16 recites "said occupancy grid". However, it appears that this should read "said consolidated occupancy grid", referring back to line 11 (see ¶71 of the specification). If line 16 is not referring back to the consolidated occupancy grid, then the consolidated occupancy grid is not being used any way in the claim, making it unclear why it is constructed. The remaining claims are dependent upon claim 1.
(c) In claim 9, line 7 recites "said occupancy grid". However, it appears that this should read "said consolidated occupancy grid", referring back to claim 9, line 5 (see ¶71 of the specification). If line 7 is not referring back to the consolidated occupancy grid, then the consolidated occupancy grid is not being used any way in the claim, making it unclear why it is constructed. Claims 10-11 depend upon claim 9.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitzmann (US 2018/0231650 A1) in view of Dussan '788 (US 10,598,788 B1).
In regard to claim 1, Heitzmann discloses a method for perceiving physical bodies (CM) in an environment (tree and vehicle to the right, Fig. 7A; ¶93), comprising the following steps, iteratively implemented by a computer or a dedicated digital electronic circuit (PR) (Fig. 7B in VT, Fig. 7A):
a) controlling a sensor (CD) (C, Fig. 7B; C1, Fig. 8A) in an acquisition sequence (¶93) [where in the embodiment that the sheets are not produced simultaneously, they are being produced sequentially], with said sensor having a detection region (RD) (region illuminated by C1, Fig. 8A) that can be oriented in the environment (VT, Fig. 7A) [where the sensor can be oriented in the environment because the vehicle VT can be oriented in the environment and the sensor is affixed to the vehicle VT] in order to acquire a plurality of distance measurements (MDi) of said physical bodies (¶93);
b) applying, to each of said distance measurements, an inverse model (MIN) of the corresponding sensor on an occupancy grid (GOi) providing a discretized spatial representation of an environment of said sensor, in order to determine a probability of occupancy of a set of cells of said occupancy grid by a physical body (¶25); and
c) constructing a consolidated occupancy grid (GO), each cell of which has a probability of occupancy computed by Bayesian fusion of the probabilities of occupancy estimated during step b) (Fig. 7B; ¶26; ¶56; ¶95-96) [where the consolidated occupancy grid is constructed based on the probabilities of occupancy, where the probabilities of occupancy are determined based on the inverse model, where the inverse model is determined based on Bayes' theorem].
Heitzmann disclose fails to disclose the detection region of the sensor has a variable angular width (α) and in that the method also comprises the following steps: d) identifying, based on said occupancy grid, at least one region of interest (ROI) of the environment; and e) determining one of said acquisition sequences defining, for each distance measurement, at least the orientation (θ, φ) and the angular width (α) of the detection region of the sensor, with at least the angular widths being determined based on the one or more regions of interest identified during step d), with said acquisition sequence being used during step a) of a subsequent iteration of the method.
Dussan '788 teaches:
the detection region of the sensor has a variable angular width (α) (Fig. 15; col. 32, lines 29-45) [where the variable angular width is based on distance, where Fig. 15 shows the beam 1512 has a width matching the width of the license plate when a vehicle is at a closer distance, but the beam 1522 has a width wider than the width of the license plate when the vehicle is at a farther distance] and in that the method also comprises the following steps:
d) identifying, based on an occupancy grid, at least one region of interest (ROI) of the environment [in order to improve safety and accuracy] (col. 6, lines 3-60; col. 29, lines 49-59); and
e) determining one of said acquisition sequences defining, for each distance measurement, at least the orientation (θ, φ) and the angular width (α) of the detection region of the sensor, with at least the angular widths being determined based on the one or more regions of interest identified during step d) (col. 6, lines 43-60; col. 32, lines 12-53) [where each cell has a corresponding azimuth, elevation, and angular width, where a cell identified as corresponding to a distance measurement/range point will have its particular azimuth, elevation, and angular width], with said acquisition sequence being used during step a) of a subsequent iteration of the method (col. 6, lines 3-60; col. 29, lines 49-59) [where the prior ladar pulse return is used in the subsequent iteration. That is, a distance measurement/range point indicating a region of interest results in that region be given scan priority in the subsequent iteration].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve safety based on improving the accuracy of the determined measurements, as motived by Dussan '788 (col. 29, lines 49-59).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the vehicle is driven with improved safety based on measurements made with improved accuracy.
In regard to claim 2, Dussan '788 further teaches, during step e), the orientations of the detection region (RD) of the sensor (CD) are also determined based on the one or more regions of interest (ROI) identified during step d) (col. 6, lines 3-60) [where the cells corresponding to the region of interest/scan priority region have associated orientations/azimuth/elevation, and thus the orientations of the detection region are determined based on the region of interest].
In regard to claim 3, Heitzmann further discloses determining the occupancy grid based on the probabilities of occupancy of the cells (¶25) aboard a moving vehicle (VT, Fig. 7A). Since the vehicle is moving, the grid at a subsequent time covers a different area of the environment (i.e. a common area, but an area close to the vehicle at the previous time at the bottom of the grid is no longer visible while an area that was not visible to the vehicle at the previous time is now visible to the vehicle at the top of the grid). Thus, the grid at the second time can be referred to as a movement grid (a grid determined based on the movement of the vehicle). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognized the time evolution of the probabilities of occupancy of the cells of the occupancy grid are used to determine which cells of the new grid correspond to the occupied cells on the old grid.
In the combination, the at least one region of interest (ROI) of the environment is based on the movement grid since the cells corresponding to the region of interest in the new grid (after correcting for movement of the vehicle) are the ones to be prioritized. (Put another way, if a telephone pole is identified in cell AAA in Fig. 2B of Dussan '788 at time 1, at time 2 the telephone pole will be located in cell AAC in the new grid due to the movement of the vehicle forward. Eventually the telephone pole signature will drop off grid (from cell CCC to not being on the grid) as the vehicle drives past the telephone pole.)
In regard to claim 4, Dussan '788 further teaches the sensor is adapted to also provide speed measurements of the physical bodies (col. 7, lines 9-15; col. 32, lines 1-4).
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to identify vehicles of interest (corresponding to a region of interest in the combination) based on their relative velocities and positions (e.g. a closer vehicle in front of you traveling at a lower velocity than you is more of interest than a farther ahead vehicle traveling at a velocity faster than you).
In regard to claim 5, Dussan '788 further teaches the acquisition sequence determined during step e) is adapted to sample the one or more regions of interest (ROI) or their contours, either with a higher spatial and/or temporal resolution than the rest of the environment, or with a lower spatial and/or temporal resolution than the rest of the environment (col. 8, lines 4-21) [where a higher spatial resolution can be chosen for a region with higher scan priority and a lower spatial resolution can be chosen for a region with lower scan priority].
In regard to claim 6, Heitzmann further discloses each of said inverse sensor models (MIN) is a discrete model (MQP, MQE), associating each cell of the corresponding occupancy grid (GOi), and for each distance measurement (MDi), with a probability class selected within the same set of finite cardinality, with each of said probability classes being identified by an integer index, and wherein, during said step c), the probability of occupancy of each cell of the consolidated occupancy grid (GO) is determined by means of integer computations carried out on the indices of the probability classes determined during said step b) (¶25-26).
In regard to claim 7, Heitzmann further discloses the inverse model of the sensor (MIN) is stored in a memory in the form of a data structure representing a plurality of grids, called model grids, associated with respective possible distance measurements and respective possible angular widths of the detection region, with at least some cells of a model grid corresponding to a plurality of contiguous cells of the occupancy grid belonging to the same angular sector from among a plurality of angular sectors (AS1-AS4) into which the detection region (RD) of the sensor (CD) is subdivided, and associating the same probability of occupancy with each of these cells (¶96).
In regard to claim 8, Heitzmann further discloses step c) comprises constructing the consolidated occupancy grid also based on distance measurements originating from one or more auxiliary sensors (CA) (¶48; ¶93) [where lidar can be considered the main sensors (¶93) and sonars or infrared radars or flight-time cameras would then be auxiliary sensors to the main sensors (¶48)].
In regard to claim 9, Heitzmann further discloses a system for perceiving physical bodies (CM) (tree and vehicle to the right, Fig. 7A; ¶93) comprising:
at least one input port for receiving a plurality of signals representing distance measurements (MDi) of said physical bodies originating from one or more sensors (input ports corresponding to signals Z1, Z2, ..., ZNC, Fig. 7B);
a data processing module (PR) configured to receive said signals as input and to use them to construct a consolidated occupancy grid (GO) (F, Fig. 7B; ¶99) and to determine an acquisition sequence by applying a method as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, above); and
a first output port for a signal representing the occupancy grid (GO) or the one or more regions of interest (ROI) (gfus, Fig. 7B).
Dussan '788 further teaches determining the acquisition sequence (α, θ, φ) (col. 6, lines 3-60; col. 29, lines 49-59).
In the combination, the data processing module would include a second output to output the acquisition sequence to adjust the operation of the system.
In regard to claim 10, Heitzmann further discloses one or more distance sensors (CD) to provide said one or more input ports with signals representing a plurality of distance measurements of physical bodies (C providing signals Z2, ..., ZNC to corresponding input ports, Fig. 7B).
In the combination, the sensors would receive said signal representing the acquisition sequence from said second output port in order to control the distance sensors as taught in Dussan '788.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitzmann and Dussan '788, as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Wang (US 2021/0263145 A1).
Heitzmann further discloses the at least one distance sensor is of the radar, Lidar, or sonar type (¶48; ¶93).
Heitzmann fails to disclose the at least one distance sensor comprises a beamforming system for controlling the orientation and the angular width of an electromagnetic or acoustic radiation beam defining the detection region.
Wang teaches an at least one distance sensor comprises a beamforming system for controlling the orientation and the angular width of an electromagnetic or acoustic radiation beam defining the detection region [in order to detect one or more objects within a region of interest] (¶30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect and distinguish objects within the region of interest.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that objects within the region of interest or detected and distinguished.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Albasha (US 2020/0326416 A1), which teaches a radar using beamforming in order to concentrate the transmitted signal energy in a particular region of interest (¶73).
Mottin (US 2018/0247216 A1), which teaches using the use of inverse sensor mode, an occupancy grid, a consolidated occupancy grid, and Bayesian fusion.
Dia (US 2020/0018825 A1), which teaches using the use of inverse sensor mode, an occupancy grid, a consolidated occupancy grid, and Bayesian fusion, and is incorporated-by-reference into Mottin in ¶13 of Mottin.
Andriamahefa (Integer Occupancy Grids: a probabilistic multi-sensor fusion framework for embedded perception), which teaches application of integer occupancy grids for automotive multi-sensor fusion (chapter 4).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights