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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 11, and 19 have been amended, claims 6, 16, and 18 have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer, and new claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17, and 19-23 are pending in this application, of which claims 1, 11, and 23 are independent.
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 23 is 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 23 recites the "third track information" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no third track or third sensor introduced in the language of the claim prior to its recitation here.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 13-15, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan et al. (US 20210331695 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220319328 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ramakrishnan teaches an apparatus for controlling a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a first sensor configured to obtain first track information associated with an external object, wherein the first track information comprises a visual object corresponding to the external object within an image obtained by the first sensor ([0021] and [0033], where the first sensor is a camera takes images of visual objects);
a second sensor configured to obtain second track information associated with the external object ([0022] and [0032], where the second sensor is a radar);
a third sensor configured to obtain third track information associated with the external object, wherein the third track information comprises at least one of a cluster of points of a plurality of clusters of points obtained by the third sensor or a virtual box of a plurality of virtual boxes obtained by the third sensor, and wherein the cluster of points or the virtual box correspond to the external object ([0022], and [0036], where the third sensor is a LiDAR sensor that performs point-cloud analysis to identify an object’s bounding box);
and a processor ([0028]), wherein the processor is configured to:
set, based on selecting the first sensor as a reference sensor, a reference angle range ([0033] and [0040], where a position and bearing information is determined from the camera measurement track; [0043], where object tracks are initially determined from the camera measurement tracks, which include the angle detected; [0038], where future correlating of a sensor track and an object track is performed when the orientation of a sensor track matches orientation of an object track, which is initially based on the angle determined by the camera);
set a reference distance ([0038] and [0043], where the initial reference distance of the object track is from the camera);
associate, based on the reference angle range and the reference distance, at least one of the first track information, the second track information, or the third track information ([0039], where the sensor tracks are associated with an object track based on matching with a distance and angle of the object track; [0040-0042], where the specific determination varies for the three sensor tracks);
and output, based on the association, a signal for controlling the vehicle ([0056]).
Ramakrishnan is not explicit in how the radar sensor operates, and does not teach wherein the second track information comprises a plot of a plurality of plots obtained by the second sensor, and wherein the plot corresponds to the external object. Additionally, Ramakrishnan teaches that the reference distance is determined by the camera it generates a new object track ([0043]), but the primary embodiment of Ramakrishnan does not explicitly teach that the reference distance is based on the second track information, although Ramakrishnan discloses an alternate embodiment where the object track can initially be inferred from the radar data ([0038]).
In the same field of sensor fusion for object detection by a vehicle, Zhang teaches using a radar sensor to track a vehicle, wherein the second track information comprises a plot of a plurality of plots obtained by the second sensor, and wherein the plot corresponds to the external object ([0039] and Figs. 2-1 and 2-2, where the waves reflected by the sensor are used to develop a distance and azimuth of the object “relative to a polar coordinate system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the radar sensor of Ramakrishnan based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow for easier detection of objects by the radar sensor, thus leading to an easier determination of association when comparing the detected polar coordinates of the object. Additionally, Zhang teaches that relying solely on a camera-only approach to estimating positional attributes of an object can be difficult as “measuring range using images can be difficult” ([0019]). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been able and motivated to combine the embodiments of Ramakrishnan so that the initial reference distance of the initially produced track is based on the second track information for the motivation, as taught by Zhang, of improving the estimations produced so as to avoid inaccurate detections and estimations of object locations that would otherwise create unsafe operation for the vehicle ([0019]).
Ramakrishnan further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
based on determining that a second track, from the second track information, is within the reference angle range from the first track information, associate the first track information and the second track information ([0042], where the radar track is associated with the object track as produced by the camera track if they are within a ratio angle value of each other, with the allowed angle range varying based on the closeness of the two distances).
Ramakrishnan does not explicitly teach that the reference angle range is set, based on an angle resolution from the second sensor and center coordinates from the first track information. However, it teaches that association of the first track, i.e. the existing tracks, and the second tracks, i.e. newly sensed measurements by the radar sensor, is done with “a combined ratio of the measurement's distance and angle to the track's distance and angle” ([0042]). This results in the tracks being associated with each other when the second track’s angle is within a threshold distance to the angle of the first track, this threshold being based on the closeness of distances between the two tracks. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the setting of a reference angle range based on an angle resolution from the second sensor and center coordinates from the first track information to be an implicit and obvious feature of Ramakrishnan as, based on the closeness of distances between two tracks, the second track angle must be within a threshold range of the first track angle in order for the track information to be associated. This necessarily flows from the disclosure of Ramakrishnan and mirrors the intersection over union test that is done for association when the second track information is instead from a camera or a LIDAR sensor ([0040-0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Ramakrishnan teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
associate, based on determining the third track information, at least one of the third track information, the first track information, or the second track information, wherein the third track information indicates that a third track is included within the reference angle range and within the reference distance. ([0041-0042], where the LiDAR track is associated with the object track if the bounding box of the LiDAR track is within the object track’s angle and distance range enough to pass a determination by an Intersection over Union model).
Regarding claim 4, Ramakrishnan teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine a reference angle for setting the reference angle range based on at least one of:
a first length between a center of the image and an end of the image, a second length between the center of the image and an end of a first track indicated by the first track information, or a field of view of the first sensor ([0043], where the initial angle as determined by the camera that is used as a reference angle for a new track is based on the field of view of the camera as the camera will only detect and produce signals for objects within its field of view).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the first track information based on:
a first axis parallel to a driving direction of the vehicle, and a second axis perpendicular to the first axis ([0042], [0044], [0060], and Figs. 2-1 and 4-1, where the object location is estimated via an azimuth from the axis of travel and from determined coordinates, which are given in respect to an x y and z direction, with the x being a lateral direction perpendicular the direction of travel of the vehicle, and z being a longitudinal distance along the vehicle);
and determine, based on center coordinates from the first track information, a reference angle for setting the reference angle range ([0044] and Figs 4-1 and 5-1, where the bounding box and angles it reaches are based on the center coordinates of the object).
Regarding claim 9, Ramakrishnan does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to: assign a first identifier to the first track information, wherein the first identifier indicates that the first sensor is the reference sensor; assign a second identifier to the second track information wherein the second identifier indicates that the second sensor is a target sensor different from the reference sensor; and assign the second identifier or a third identifier to the third track information, wherein the second identifier or the third identifier indicate that the third sensor is the target sensor. However, Ramakrishnan does teach that unique operations are performed for each sensor measurement track produced based on the sensor that produces the track, with different value functions being performed to determine if sensor tracks should be associated ([0040-0042]) and determine which parameters of the object track should be updated upon association with a sensor track ([0046]). Therefore, it is implicit that a first identifier is assigned to the first track information, a second identifier is assigned to the second track information, and a third identifier is assigned to the third track information, with the first identifier indicating that the first sensor is the reference sensor, i.e. the camera, the second identifier indicates that the second sensor is a target sensor different from the reference sensor, i.e. the radar sensor, and the third identifier indicating that the third sensor is the target sensor, i.e. the LiDAR. The invention of Ramakrishnan would otherwise be unable to use different assignment metrics and update different parameters of an object track if these three identifiers were not present to otherwise distinguish the three sensors and their subsequently produced tracks from each other.
Regarding claim 10, Ramakrishnan teaches wherein the processor is configured to, based on associating the first track information, the second track information, and the third track information:
assign, to the first track information, the second track information, and the third track information, at least one of: a sensor flag indicating that the first track information, the second track information, and the third track information are associated, a data structure, or an identifier ([0047-0048], where associated tracks are removed from a list of unmatched tracks to the list of matched detections in order to avoid being removed via a filtering of unmatched tracks).
Regarding claim 11, Ramakrishnan teaches a method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
setting, by a processor and based on selecting a first sensor as a reference sensor, a reference angle range ([0033] and [0040], where a position and bearing information is determined from the camera measurement track; [0043], where object tracks are initially determined from the camera measurement tracks, which include the angle detected; [0038], where future correlating of a sensor track and an object track is performed when the orientation of a sensor track matches orientation of an object track, which is initially based on the angle determined by the camera);
wherein first track information, obtained from the first sensor, comprises a visual object corresponding to an external object within an image obtained by the first sensor ([0021] and [0033], where the first sensor is a camera takes images of visual objects);
setting a reference distance ([0038] and [0043], where the initial reference distance of the object track is from the camera);;
associating, based on the reference angle range and the reference distance, at least one of first track information obtained from the first sensor, the second track information, or third track information obtained from a third sensor ([0039], where the sensor tracks are associated with an object track based on matching with a distance and angle of the object track; [0040-0042], where the specific determination varies for the three sensor tracks),
wherein the third track information comprises at least one of a cluster of points of a plurality of clusters of points obtained by the third sensor or a virtual box of a plurality of virtual boxes obtained by the third sensor, and wherein the cluster of points or the virtual box correspond to the external object ([0022], and [0036], where the third sensor is a LiDAR sensor that performs point-cloud analysis to identify an object’s bounding box);
and outputting, based on the associating, a signal for controlling the vehicle ([0056]).
Ramakrishnan is not explicit in how the radar sensor operates, and does not teach wherein the second track information comprises a plot of a plurality of plots obtained by the second sensor, and wherein the plot corresponds to the external object. Additionally, Ramakrishnan teaches that the reference distance is determined by the camera it generates a new object track ([0043]), but the primary embodiment of Ramakrishnan does not explicitly teach that the reference distance is obtained from a second sensor, although Ramakrishnan discloses an alternate embodiment where the object track can initially be inferred from the radar data ([0038]).
In the same field of sensor fusion for object detection by a vehicle, Zhang teaches using a radar sensor to track a vehicle, wherein the second track information comprises a plot of a plurality of plots obtained by the second sensor, and wherein the plot corresponds to the external object ([0039] and Figs. 2-1 and 2-2, where the waves reflected by the sensor are used to develop a distance and azimuth of the object “relative to a polar coordinate system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the radar sensor of Ramakrishnan based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow for easier detection of objects by the radar sensor, thus leading to an easier determination of association when comparing the detected polar coordinates of the object. Additionally, Zhang teaches that relying solely on a camera-only approach to estimating positional attributes of an object can be difficult as “measuring range using images can be difficult” ([0019]). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been able and motivated to combine the embodiments of Ramakrishnan so that the initial reference distance of the initially produced track is obtained from a second track information for the motivation, as taught by Zhang, of improving the estimations produced so as to avoid inaccurate detections and estimations of object locations that would otherwise create unsafe operation for the vehicle ([0019]).
Ramakrishnan further teaches wherein the method further comprises:
based on determining that a second track, from the second track information, is within the reference angle range from the first track information, associating the first track information and the second track information ([0042], where the radar track is associated with the object track as produced by the camera track if they are within a ratio angle value of each other, with the allowed angle range varying based on the closeness of the two distances).
Ramakrishnan does not explicitly teach that the reference angle range is set, based on an angle resolution from the second sensor and center coordinates from the first track information. However, it teaches that association of the first track, i.e. the existing tracks, and the second tracks, i.e. newly sensed measurements by the radar sensor, is done with “a combined ratio of the measurement's distance and angle to the track's distance and angle” ([0042]). This results in the tracks being associated with each other when the second track’s angle is within a threshold distance to the angle of the first track, this threshold being based on the closeness of distances between the two tracks. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the setting of a reference angle range based on an angle resolution from the second sensor and center coordinates from the first track information to be an implicit and obvious feature of Ramakrishnan as, based on the closeness of distances between two tracks, the second track angle must be within a threshold range of the first track angle in order for the track information to be associated. This necessarily flows from the disclosure of Ramakrishnan and mirrors the intersection over union test that is done for association when the second track information is instead from a camera or a LIDAR sensor ([0040-0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Ramakrishnan teaches:
associating, based on determining the third track information, at least one of the third track information, the first track information, or the second track information, wherein the third track information indicates that a third track is included within the reference angle range and within the reference distance. ([0041-0042], where the LiDAR track is associated with the object track if the bounding box of the LiDAR track is within the object track’s angle and distance range enough to pass a determination by an Intersection over Union model).
Regarding claim 14, Ramakrishnan teaches determining a reference angle for setting the reference angle range based on at least one of:
a first length between a center of the image and an end of the image, a second length between the center of the image and an end of a first track indicated by the first track information, or a field of view of the first sensor ([0043], where the initial angle as determined by the camera that is used as a reference angle for a new track is based on the field of view of the camera as the camera will only detect and produce signals for objects within its field of view).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches determining the first track information based on:
a first axis parallel to a driving direction of the vehicle, and a second axis perpendicular to the first axis ([0042], [0044], [0060], and Figs. 2-1 and 4-1, where the object location is estimated via an azimuth from the axis of travel and from determined coordinates, which are given in respect to an x y and z direction, with the x being a lateral direction perpendicular the direction of travel of the vehicle, and z being a longitudinal distance along the vehicle);
and determining, based on center coordinates from the first track information, a reference angle for setting the reference angle range ([0044] and Figs 4-1 and 5-1, where the bounding box and angles it reaches are based on the center coordinates of the object).
Regarding claim 19, Ramakrishnan does not explicitly teach assigning a first identifier to the first track information, wherein the first identifier indicates that the first sensor is the reference sensor; assigning a second identifier to the second track information wherein the second identifier indicates that the second sensor is a target sensor different from the reference sensor; and assigning the second identifier or a third identifier to the third track information, wherein the second identifier or the third identifier indicate that the third sensor is the target sensor. However, Ramakrishnan does teach that unique operations are performed for each sensor measurement track produced based on the sensor that produces the track, with different value functions being performed to determine if sensor tracks should be associated ([0040-0042]) and determine which parameters of the object track should be updated upon association with a sensor track ([0046]). Therefore, it is implicit that a first identifier is assigned to the first track information, a second identifier is assigned to the second track information, and a third identifier is assigned to the third track information, with the first identifier indicating that the first sensor is the reference sensor, i.e. the camera, the second identifier indicates that the second sensor is a target sensor different from the reference sensor, i.e. the radar sensor, and the third identifier indicating that the third sensor is the target sensor, i.e. the LiDAR. The invention of Ramakrishnan would otherwise be unable to use different assignment metrics and update different parameters of an object track if these three identifiers were not present to otherwise distinguish the three sensors and their subsequently produced tracks from each other.
Regarding claim 20, Ramakrishnan teaches based on associating the first track information, the second track information, and the third track information:
assigning, to the first track information, the second track information, and the third track information, at least one of: a sensor flag indicating that the first track information, the second track information, and the third track information are associated, a data structure, or an identifier ([0047-0048], where associated tracks are removed from a list of unmatched tracks to the list of matched detections in order to avoid being removed via a filtering of unmatched tracks).
Regarding claim 21, Ramakrishnan teaches:
wherein the designated angle is based on the angle resolution from the second sensor ([0042], the angle of the second track, i.e. the measured angle, is from the radar sensor).
Ramakrishnan does not explicitly teach wherein the reference angle range comprises a range between a reference angle plus a designated angle and the reference angle minus the designated angle. However, as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, the angle of the second track, i.e. the measurement’s angle in Ramakrishnan, must be within a threshold distance of the angle of the first track, i.e. the track’s angle in Ramakrishnan, in order for association to occur, this threshold distance being based on a ratio of the two distances ([0042]). Therefore, it is considered implicit to the disclosure of Ramakrishnan that the reference angle range where the second track’s angle must be within for association to occur comprises a range between a reference angle, i.e. the track’s angle in Ramakrishnan, plus a designated angle and the reference angle minus the designated angle as this is an implicit feature of angular ranges.
Regarding claim 22, Ramakrishnan teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
prior to the associating of the first track information and the second track information, perform track preprocessing comprising removing at least one of the first track information, the second track information, or the third track information having a reliability smaller than a reference reliability, based on a field of view of a corresponding one of the first sensor, the second sensor, or the third sensor ([0048-0049], where before a first track from a camera is made visible so as to be associated with other tracks, it goes through a decay period where it is removed if the object is not seen by the camera over a threshold number of times. This is recognized as equivalent to the claim language as the first track information is removed if it has a smaller reliability than a reference reliability, i.e. it is seen less than a number of times, based on a field of view of a first sensor, i.e. based on it being seen in the field of view of the camera).
Regarding claim 23, Ramakrishnan teaches an apparatus for controlling a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a first sensor configured to obtain first track information associated with an external object, wherein the first track information comprises a visual object corresponding to the external object within an image obtained by the first sensor ([0021] and [0033], where the first sensor is a camera takes images of visual objects);
a second sensor configured to obtain second track information associated with the external object ([0022] and [0032], where the second sensor is a radar);
and a processor ([0028]), wherein the processor is configured to:
set, based on selecting the first sensor as a reference sensor, a reference angle range ([0033] and [0040], where a position and bearing information is determined from the camera measurement track; [0043], where object tracks are initially determined from the camera measurement tracks, which include the angle detected; [0038], where future correlating of a sensor track and an object track is performed when the orientation of a sensor track matches orientation of an object track, which is initially based on the angle determined by the camera);
set a reference distance ([0038] and [0043], where the initial reference distance of the object track is from the camera);
associate, based on the reference angle range and the reference distance, at least one of the first track information, the second track information, or the third track information ([0039], where the sensor tracks are associated with an object track based on matching with a distance and angle of the object track; [0040-0042], where the specific determination varies for the three sensor tracks);
and output, based on the association, a signal for controlling the vehicle ([0056]).
Ramakrishnan is not explicit in how the radar sensor operates, and does not teach wherein the second track information comprises a plot of a plurality of plots obtained by the second sensor, and wherein the plot corresponds to the external object. Additionally, Ramakrishnan teaches that the reference distance is determined by the camera it generates a new object track ([0043]), but the primary embodiment of Ramakrishnan does not explicitly teach that the reference distance is based on the second track information, although Ramakrishnan discloses an alternate embodiment where the object track can initially be inferred from the radar data ([0038]).
In the same field of sensor fusion for object detection by a vehicle, Zhang teaches using a radar sensor to track a vehicle, wherein the second track information comprises a plot of a plurality of plots obtained by the second sensor, and wherein the plot corresponds to the external object ([0039] and Figs. 2-1 and 2-2, where the waves reflected by the sensor are used to develop a distance and azimuth of the object “relative to a polar coordinate system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the radar sensor of Ramakrishnan based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow for easier detection of objects by the radar sensor, thus leading to an easier determination of association when comparing the detected polar coordinates of the object. Additionally, Zhang teaches that relying solely on a camera-only approach to estimating positional attributes of an object can be difficult as “measuring range using images can be difficult” ([0019]). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been able and motivated to combine the embodiments of Ramakrishnan so that the initial reference distance of the initially produced track is based on the second track information for the motivation, as taught by Zhang, of improving the estimations produced so as to avoid inaccurate detections and estimations of object locations that would otherwise create unsafe operation for the vehicle ([0019]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US 20180012374 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ramakrishnan teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
determine the plot of the plurality of plots, as a part of the second track information, wherein the plot is included within the reference angle range ([0042], where a radar track is selected for association with the object track if it is within a ratio angle value of the object track, with the allowed angle range varying based on the closeness of the two distances);
and associate, based on the determination, the second track information and the first track information ([0042], where the radar and object track are associated; [0043], the object track is initially produced from the camera track).
Ramakrishnan does not teach that the determined plot from the radar is the plot at the closest distance from the vehicle.
In the field of vehicular object detection using radar sensors, Fujita teaches that a selected object by the radar is an object at the closest distance from the vehicle ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to select the closest plot of the plurality of detected plots based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Fujita, of avoiding impending collision as objects to a vehicle represent a greater chance of collision ([0129]).
Regarding claim 12, Ramakrishnan teaches:
determining the plot of the plurality of plots, as a part of the second track information, wherein the plot is included within the reference angle range ([0042], where a radar track is selected for association with the object track if it is within a ratio angle value of the object track, with the allowed angle range varying based on the closeness of the two distances);
and associating, based on the determination, the second track information and the first track information ([0042], where the radar and object track are associated; [0043], the object track is initially produced from the camera track).
Ramakrishnan does not teach that the determined plot from the radar is the plot at the closest distance from the vehicle.
In the field of vehicular object detection using radar sensors, Fujita teaches that a selected object by the radar is an object at the closest distance from the vehicle ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to select the closest plot of the plurality of detected plots based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Fujita, of avoiding impending collision as objects to a vehicle represent a greater chance of collision ([0129]).
Claims 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Agon et al. (US 20220119012 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ramakrishnan teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
set, based on a longitudinal distance from the vehicle as indicated by the second track information, the reference distance ([0038], where the track is initially generated with the distance determined by the radar as the reference distance per the prior combination).
Ramakrishnan does not teach that the reference distance is also based on a location resolution associated with the third sensor.
In the field of vehicular object detection using a plurality of sensors, Agon teaches using 3d Information from a LiDAR to determine if objects are within a certain range of the vehicle, and if they are not, the range of a perception component, i.e. reference distance, is increased ([0038] and [0063]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify Ramakrishnan with this operation, thereby having the reference distance also be based on a location resolution associated with the third sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Ramakrishnan by having its reference distance range be based on an additional location resolution based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to increase object detection accuracy. Ramakrishnan of the previous combination teaches that the radar detection is "relative to a center of the field of view" of signals in the radar data ([0032]), meaning it is limited in directions and accuracy far from that field of view. Therefore, modifying this with the teaching of Agon limits the expansion of the reference detection range if there are objects that are detected by the Lidar system but otherwise unable to be detected by the radar system.
Regarding claim 8, Agon teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
set the reference distance as a first reference distance ([0038-0039], where the reference distance range is set to 10 yards);
set the reference distance as a second reference distance exceeding the first reference distance at a second longitudinal distance by gradually increasing the reference distance from the first reference distance ([0038-0039], where the reference distance range is set to 30 yards).
Agon teaches a variety of conditions for the setting of this reference distance range ([0039], but does not explicitly teach that this setting of the reference distance range as a first reference distance is based on the longitudinal distance being smaller than or equal to a first longitudinal distance, nor that the setting of the reference distance range as a second reference distance is based on the longitudinal distance exceeding the first longitudinal distance and being smaller than or equal to a second longitudinal distance.
However, Agon does teach analyzing specific areas of interests and objects and tracking them within a selected distance ([0039]). It also teaches modifying a range of perception of a sensor to monitor and identify objects that are outside a default range of the vehicle’s sensors ([0038]). A skilled artisan would have thus been motivated to modify the detection range to ensure that certain areas of interest remain in the detection range of the vehicle’s sensors. Therefore, if the longitudinal distance between the vehicle and this of interest is smaller than a default detection range, i.e. a first longitudinal distance, it would have been obvious to set the reference distance to a first reference distance so as to improve the efficiency of the invention by not tracking and analyzing unintended objects beyond a desired range and to accurately and quickly determine the objects within such a range. Further, if the longitudinal distance between the vehicle and this of interest is exceeding the default detection range while being within a maximum possible detection range of the system, i.e. a second longitudinal distance, it would have been obvious to set the reference distance to a second reference distance for the motivation of enabling the sensors to monitor and detect objects with said area of interest.
Regarding claim 17, Ramakrishnan teaches:
setting, based on a longitudinal distance from the vehicle as indicated by the second track information, the reference distance ([0038], where the track is initially generated with the distance determined by the radar as the reference distance per the prior combination).
Ramakrishnan does not teach that the reference distance is also based on a location resolution associated with the third sensor.
In the field of vehicular object detection using a plurality of sensors, Agon teaches using 3d Information from a LiDAR to determine if objects are within a certain range of the vehicle, and if they are not, the range of a perception component, i.e. reference distance, is increased ([0038] and [0063]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify Ramakrishnan with this operation, thereby having the reference distance also be based on a location resolution associated with the third sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Ramakrishnan by having its reference distance range be based on an additional location resolution based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to increase object detection accuracy. Ramakrishnan of the previous combination teaches that the radar detection is "relative to a center of the field of view" of signals in the radar data ([0032]), meaning it is limited in directions and accuracy far from that field of view. Therefore, modifying this with the teaching of Agon limits the expansion of the reference detection range if there are objects that are detected by the Lidar system but otherwise unable to be detected by the radar system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 3/30/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that Ramakrishnan does not teach limitation amended to the independent claims as “Ramakrishnan does not disclose or suggest any ‘angle resolution’ of a second sensor for setting a ‘reference angle range’ that is set further ‘based on selecting the first sensor as a reference sensor.’ Notably, Ramakrishnan does not disclose or suggest the ‘reference angle range’ is set based on both ‘an angle resolution from the second sensor and center coordinates from the first track information’,” emphasis added by applicant. This argument is unpersuasive. Ramakrishnan explicitly teaches that the first sensor is a reference sensor in which tracks are generated, and the measurements from the camera are the reference measurements for the track as initially generated ([0043]). Ramakrishnan teaches that newly measured tracks are fused with these initial tracks as generated by the reference sensor based on specific tests performed based on the sensor that produced these newly measured tracks ([0040]). When the newly measured track is from a radar sensor, i.e. the second track produced by the second sensor, Ramakrishnan details how a value function of “a combined ratio of the measurement's distance and angle to the track's distance and angle” is used to determine if the two tracks should be fused ([0042]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this ratio checks an angular range where, based on a resolution between the closeness in distance between the measurement’s distance, i.e. second track’s distance, and the track’s distance, i.e. first track’s distance, the angle of the second track from the radar must be within a certain threshold from the center angle from the first track in order for the two tracks to be associated. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the angular resolution and setting of the reference angle range as claimed is implicit and obvious over the disclosure of Ramakrishnan given how the ratio of distances and angles is analyzed in Ramakrishnan. Such an angular range necessarily flows from the disclosure of Ramakrishnan.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights