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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of claim 6:
STEP 1: Does claim 6 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 6. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with a vehicle;
determining, based on a first upper bound slope and a first lower bound slope, a first region;
determining, based at least in part on the first region, the first lower bound slope, and the first upper bound slope, a first subset of the sensor data points;
determining, based on the first subset of the sensor data points, a representative height and representative roll; and
determining a ground profile based at least in part on the representative height and the representative roll.
The limitations bolded in claim 6 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and utilizing pen and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 6 highlighted above merely consists of viewing the path and determining its various regions and organizing them into subsets. Then, a profile of the ground can be determined. This is equivalent to a person looking at the path that a vehicle will travel on and determine the profile of the same based on the observed ground characteristics such as the slope. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 6. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with a vehicle;
determining, based on a first upper bound slope and a first lower bound slope, a first region;
determining, based at least in part on the first region, the first lower bound slope, and the first upper bound slope, a first subset of the sensor data points;
determining, based on the first subset of the sensor data points, a representative height and representative roll; and
determining a ground profile based at least in part on the representative height and the representative roll.
Claim 6 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The non-transitory computer-readable media, processors, sensor and vehicle are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is also a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Determining and receiving are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by the vehicle in claim 6.
Claim 14 has the corresponding limitations of Claim 6 and as such the analysis of Claim 14 also pertains to Claim 6.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 6 and 14 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 6 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Analysis of Claims 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20
Dependent claims 7-8, 10-13,15-16, and 18-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. More specifically, the limitations of claims 7-8, 10-13,15-16, and 18-20 are, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can be performed in the human mind using a similar analysis as applied to claim 6 above.
As such, claims 7-8, 10-13,15-16, and 18-20are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 20230136860 A1 (herein, Wang) and in view of Niewiadomski et al. US 20210146998 A1 (herein, Nie).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses, a system (¶[0001] – “…a system to drive a vehicle autonomously,…”) comprising:
one or more processors (¶[0050] – “processor”); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (¶[0050] – “…various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory…”):
receiving a path associated with controlling an autonomous vehicle through an environment ([0001] - “… to navigate along the path of the vehicle through the surrounding three-dimensional (3D) environment. Thus, the ability to detect parts of an environment is often critical for autonomous driving perception systems,…”);
receiving lidar data from a sensor associated with the autonomous vehicle (¶[0005] – “…one or more cameras may be affixed to or otherwise disposed on a vehicle or other object and used to capture image(s) of a 3D environment as the vehicle or object navigates… collecting and annotating real sensor data from a single LiDAR sensor…:”);
associating the lidar data with a bin associated with a distance along the path (¶[0170] – “…identify forward facing paths and obstacles, as well aid in, with the help of one or more controllers 1736 and/or control SoCs, providing information critical to generating an occupancy grid and/or determining the preferred vehicle paths…”);
determining a lower bound slope and an upper bound slope associated with the bin (FIG. 11 and ¶[0121] – “…the example illustrated in FIG. 11… parametric equations that define the longitudinal curve l and the lateral curves qj may be varied to simulate different types of 3D road surfaces.” – i.e. – an upper and lower bound slope);
identifying, as a subset of data, a portion of the lidar data associated with the bin that falls within the lower bound slope and the upper bound slope (FIG. 11 illustrates the subset of between upper and lower bound slope on Curve l);
determining, based on the subset of data, candidate heights associated with the bin (¶[0051] – “… may comprise a two-dimensional (2D) top-down height map and/or a 3D point cloud. The dense detection data 120 may represent the observed 3D surface structure, such as a 3D road surface…”);
determining, based on the subset of data, candidate rolls associated with the bin (FIG. 11 and [0140-0141] – loss function equation and “…The log term in the example loss given by equation 6…”);
determining a representative height from the candidate heights ¶[0051] – “… may comprise a two-dimensional (2D) top-down height map and/or a 3D point cloud. The dense detection data 120 may represent the observed 3D surface structure, such as a 3D road surface…”)and a representative roll from the candidate rolls (¶[0149] – “… different values of α may be sampled to simulate different lateral surface slopes at different points on the longitudinal 3D curve…”);
determining, based at least in part on the representative height and the representative roll, a ground surface (FIG. 16 and ¶[0153] – “…a densified representation of the 3D surface structure using image data and LiDAR data captured during a capture session,…”); and
Wang discloses ground surface but does not disclose,
controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the ground surface.
However, Nie teaches,
controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the ground surface (Abstract – “… first portion of the ground surface having the first ground surface classification and controls the vehicle steering system to maneuver the vehicle…”).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Wang to include controlling the autonomous vehicle based on ground surface as taught by Nie. Doing so, provides the vehicle with increased capability thus improving the safety of the same.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Wang further teaches, wherein determining one or more of the lower bound height or the upper bound height is based at least in part on a position associated with the autonomous vehicle or a previous representative height associated with a previous bin associated with the distance along the path (¶[0053] – “…, image de-warping and/or distortion correction may be applied to the image data 102 prior to estimating 3D structure…”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Wang further teaches, the operations further comprising:
detecting an object based on the ground surface (¶0083] – “…, the vehicle 1700 may use this information (e.g., instances of obstacles)…”); and
controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the object (¶[0083] – “…otherwise perform one or more operations (e.g., obstacle or protuberance avoidance, lane keeping, lane changing, merging, splitting, adapting a suspension system of the ego-object or ego-actor to match the current road surface, applying an early acceleration…”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Wang discloses, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (¶[0050] – “…various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory…”):
receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with a vehicle (¶[0005] – “…one or more cameras may be affixed to or otherwise disposed on a vehicle or other object and used to capture image(s) of a 3D environment as the vehicle or object navigates… collecting and annotating real sensor data from a single LiDAR sensor…:”);
determining, based on the sensor data, sensor data points associated with a path of the vehicle ([0001] - “… to navigate along the path of the vehicle through the surrounding three-dimensional (3D) environment. Thus, the ability to detect parts of an environment is often critical for autonomous driving perception systems,…”);
determining, based on a first upper bound slope (FIG. 11 illustrates the upper bound slope) and a first lower bound slope (FIG. 11 illustrates the lower bound slope), a first region (FIG. 1 illustrates a region in Plane: z=0);
determining, based at least in part on the first region, the first lower bound slope, and the first upper bound slope, a first subset of the sensor data points (¶[0070] – “…(e.g., derived from sensor data captured during successive time slices separated by some designated internal)…”);
determining, based on the first subset of the sensor data points, a representative height and representative roll (FIG. 16 and ¶[0153] – “…a densified representation of the 3D surface structure using image data and LiDAR data captured during a capture session,…”); and
Wang discloses the representative height roll but does not disclose, determining a ground profile based at least in part on the representative height and the representative roll.
However, Nie teaches, determining a ground profile based at least in part on the representative height and the representative roll (FIGS. 7A-B and ¶[0057] – “… to evaluate the ground surface 98 for changes or variations therein to differentiate between classifiable surface types in the vicinity of the vehicle…”).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the operations as disclosed by Wang to include determining the ground surface as taught by Nie. Doing so, provides the vehicle operations with additional information pertaining to the ground surface so as to allow better control of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666