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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a condition determining section”, “an estimator” “a calculator” and “a determining section ” in claims 1. According to claim 16 these claim limitations correspond to Processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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. Claim limitations describe “a radar sensor” data and “a position detection sensor” , As one of ordinary skills in the art would recognize radar sensor can be considered “a position detection sensor” and therefore it is unclear whether “a position detection sensor” can be same as “a radar sensor”. Specification although gives example of the position sensor as GPS [0031] it does not clearly define the meets and bounds of the term.
Claims 7, 15 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.
Claims 1, 9 require only two measurements it is unclear what is “increase over time” in case of only two measurements as only single distance difference can be calculated.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 12352850 B1 in view of D2 KR 20230028703 A .
Regarding claims 1,9, 16, D1 teaches
1, 9, 16. A vehicle controller comprising:
at least one memory having computer program instructions stored therein; and(implicit)
at least one processor executing the computer program instructions,(implicit)
wherein the at least one processor(implicit)
receives first sensing information and, after a preset time period, second sensing information from a radar sensor;(implicit col 5 line 30 -col 6 line 14 radar data collected constantly during the time)
if(do not have patentable weight for claim 9 as claim 9 is method claim and limitation is conditional ) a predetermined condition is satisfied based on position information detected from the position detection sensor and normal operation information of the position detection sensor (col 5 line 30 -col 6 line 14 “ malfunction of the LiDAR”) , use radar for localization(col 5 line 30 -col 6 line 14)
but does not explicitly teach while D2 teaches
produces the distance estimation information after the predetermined time for an object candidate based on the first sensing information;(page 25 )
calculates distance difference information using distance information calculated for the object candidate based on the second sensing information and the distance estimation information; and(page 26 “In certain cases, object sequence generator system 506 may use a distance threshold to identify corresponding objects. For example, an object in the second image 518 that meets a distance threshold relative to the predicted location of the object from the fused image 516 may be identified as the same object as the object from the fused image 516. there is”)
categorizes the object candidate as one of a specific object or a normal object based on the distance difference information.(page 26 “In some cases, object sequence generator system 506 may use object type to identify the same object in different images.”)(using radar images see page 30)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D2 in order identify and categorize objects when malfunctioning of the one detector happens.
2, 10, 17. The object recognition apparatus of claim 1, wherein the condition determining section: if it is determined that the position detection sensor is malfunctioning based on the normal operation information, or if it is determined that the position detection sensor is determined to be functioning normally based on the normal operation information and it is determined that a host vehicle has entered a tunnel based on the position information, determines that the predetermined condition is satisfied. (D1 col 5 line 30 -col 6 line 14 “ malfunction of the LiDAR”)
5, 13, 20. The object recognition apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determining section compares the distance difference information with a predetermined threshold value to categorize the object candidate as one of the specific object or the normal object. (D2 page 26)
6, 14. The object recognition apparatus of claim 5, wherein the determining section, if the distance difference information is greater than the predetermined threshold value, categorizes the object candidate as the specific object, and if the distance difference information is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, categorizes the object candidate as the normal object. (page 26 identifying as same object or not)
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12 and 18-19 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 12352850 B1 in view of D2 KR 20230028703 A and further in view of D3 RU 2556774 C1.
D1 does not teach
3, 11, 18. The object recognition apparatus of claim 1, wherein the estimator corrects vehicle speed information of a host vehicle received from a wheel sensor using a pre-calculated error value to produce corrected vehicle speed information.
D3 teaches using wheel sensor [0025] to obtain detection information of another vehicle, speed information and acceleration information regarding the main vehicle as detection results by the a forementioned various self-contained sensors mounted on the main vehicle[0027] and although it does not explicitly teach using a pre-calculated error value to produce corrected vehicle speed information it is just one of many obvious ways to correct /calibrate measured values which may have been drifted due to uncertainty.
4, 12, 19. The object recognition apparatus of claim 3, wherein the distance estimation information is produced using the corrected vehicle speed information and distance information, angle information, and speed information for the object candidate included in the first sensing information. D3[0027](implicit)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D3 in order to assist in detection of other objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the Examiner has not found any prior art that would render obvious the claim limitations directed to
For Claims 7 and 15: “wherein the determining section, if an interval between the distance difference information and the predetermined threshold value increases over time, categorizes the object candidate as the specific object, and if the interval between the distance difference information and the predetermined threshold value is constant over time, categorize the object candidate as the normal object. “
For Claim 8: “wherein the predetermined threshold value is set variably according to a predetermined time.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELENA SERAYDARYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0706. The examiner can normally be reached on M-T, 7:30-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HELENA H SERAYDARYAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights