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 .
Status of Application
This office action is in response to the applicant’s filing on 05/19/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 10-18 have been withdrawn from examination in response to the restriction requirement. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 19-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction/election dated 04/09/2026 in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the mere presence of independent and/or distinct invention is not sufficient to warrant a restriction in examination if the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because as also set forth in more detail in the Requirement for Restriction/Election, filed on 04/09/2026, the claims are directed to two independent and distinct invention which require a different field of search for example searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries. Accordingly, there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if the claims examined together. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 8 of Paragraph [0008], on Page 3, and similarly, in Line 8 of Paragraph [0021], on page 5, the limitation,
“verifying a luminance change in the image of the infrastructure object matches an expected luminance change based on the custom lidar scan pattern with the infrastructure object”,
should be written as:
“verifying a luminance change in the image of the infrastructure object matches an expected luminance change based on the custom lidar scan pattern associated with the infrastructure object”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation of,
“verifying a luminance change in the image of the infrastructure object matches an expected luminance change based on the custom lidar scan pattern with the infrastructure object”,
should be written as:
“verifying a luminance change in the image of the infrastructure object matches an expected luminance change based on the custom lidar scan pattern associated with the infrastructure object”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-5 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 3-5 recites the claimed limitations based on determining whether the infrastructure object implements the action “successfully”. The term “successfully” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (b)). The claim lacks an objective metric for what constitutes success. For example, where the infrastructure is an access gate, and the action is opening the access gate (according to dependent claim 2 and the specification), it is unclear that the claimed invention intends to determine that the action fails to implement successfully only if the door doesn’t open completely or an incomplete opening (e.g., due to a malfunction) is still considered as an unsuccessful implementation. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, according to paragraph [0055] of the present specification. Therefore, it is interpreted as determining whether the action is completed, meaning that determining whether the gate is fully open to a sufficient width to allow a vehicle to pass through.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is not falling under any of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter). Specifically, the claimed “computer program product,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) thus not having a physical or tangible form (MPEP § 2106.03). See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007). According to MPEP 2106. 03, one of the examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories includes products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. The claim as written doesn’t encompass a structure because “computer-readable storage media” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a signal per se and does not provide a structure to the claimed product. Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims does not cover subject matter that have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of the statutory categories. Thus, the claims do not fall within a statutory category and failed the first criterion for eligibility. Correction is requested to remedy this deficiency (e.g. by providing the software on a “non-transitory computer readable medium”). In order to overcome the rejection of claim under 35 U.S.C § 101, the claim should encompass a “non-transitory computer-readable storage media”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of independent claim 19.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karurmath et al., US 20260175772 A1, hereinafter “Karurmath”, in view of Lacaze et al., US 12585023 B1, hereinafter “Lacanze”.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Karurmath discloses a method for an access control system by projecting a light pattern (including a code) into the surrounding of a vehicle (i.e., at an access control station), and teaches:
A computer-implemented method for infrastructure access control (Abstract), and a computer program product comprising: a set of one or more computer-readable storage media (__interpreted as non-transitory storage media for the purpose of proceeding examination__, See Karurmath, Abstract, [0009], “memory”); program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more storage media, for causing a processor set to perform computer operations for infrastructure access control (Abstract, [0009], [0024], “the computing unit grants access to the area when the sequence of the light pattern detected by the reader corresponds to a sequence of light patterns read out from the memory of the computing unit.”), the method comprising:
emitting a custom (Abstract, “A light pattern, including a code, is projected into surroundings of a vehicle using a lighting device of the vehicle.”, “The computing unit is integrated into or coupled to an access control station, checks whether a code corresponding to the code described by the light pattern can be found in a memory of the computing unit and permits or prevents access depending on the code check.”, [0005], [0009], “the light pattern is designed in such a way that it comprises a code, an optical reader detects the light pattern, a computing unit coupled to the reader recognizes the code in the light pattern and, depending on information described by the code, causes an action to be carried out”, [0023], “the light pattern can be cast into the surroundings in a pulsed manner at a determined frequency.”, [0026], claim 11); and
responsive to the infrastructure object implementing the action, ([0009], “ if a corresponding code is found, causes an obstacle that is blocking the entrance to an area and that can be controlled by the access control station to be removed, so that the vehicle can drive into the area, ”, [0012], “The obstacle blocking the entrance into the area may be a turnpike barrier, a retractable hydraulic cylinder, a gate, a garage door, or similar. ”).
Karurmath’s disclosure is silent about lighting device of the vehicle being a lidar source.
Nevertheless, Lacaze discloses system and method related to autonomous vehicle, in which a first vehicle is operable to detect and utilize Lidar projected pattern of a second vehicle. (see Lacaze, Col 8 L 15-19, “receive data descriptive of a plurality of LIDAR pattern data (e.g., LIDAR pattern geometries, frequencies, intensities, model numbers, make/manufacture, etc.).”, Col 7 Last para, “The apparatus 210 may, for example, execute, process, facilitate, and/or otherwise be associated with a method in which a passive follower vehicle is operable to recognize a LIDAR pattern being projected by an object vehicle” , Col 9 L 45-59) and Lacaze teaches:
the method comprising: detecting an infrastructure object in an environment in which a vehicle is operating based at least in part on lidar data collected by a lidar device of the vehicle (Col 1 L 32-57);
emitting a custom lidar scan pattern (Col 1 Last para and Col 2 first para, Examiner’s Note: Lacaze associates its lidar scan pattern with a vehicle object rather than an infrastructure object. However, a person of ordinary skill would use Lacaze’s teaching of emitting a lidar pattern toward a vehicle object and apply it to the method disclosed by Karurmath for permitting a vehicle access to a garage/gate or similar infrastructure object by identifying the vehicle light pattern).
Furtehr, Karurmath’s disclosure is silent about the vehicle being autonomously controlled to navigate with respect to the infrastructure object.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the method taught by Karurmath for accessing a gate/building with utilizing custom lidar scan pattern method for communication and authentication in the field of autonomous driving, as taught by Lacaze to arrive at the claimed limitation.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for access control system by projecting a light pattern into the surrounding of the vehicle as taught by Karurmath with utilizing a lidar-device and emitting a custom lidar pattern as taught by Lacaze, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the accuracy and safety of the vehicle authentication.
Regarding claim 2, Karurmath teaches
wherein the infrastructure object is an access gate, and wherein the action is opening the access gate (Fig. 1, element 8 is a gate, [0035], “controls the access control station 6 in order to cause the removal of the obstacle 8 so that the vehicle 2 can drive into the area 7.”).
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 9, combination of Karurmath and Lacanze teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lacanze teaches:
wherein the custom lidar scan pattern causes the infrastructure object to implement the action responsive to the custom lidar scan pattern matching an expected custom lidar scan pattern (at least Col 2 L48-61, “detect the LIDAR pattern projected by a second vehicle (e.g., an object vehicle); (ii) process the detected LIDAR pattern (e.g., by matching it to known LIDAR patterns of various manufacturers) to identify a characteristic of the object vehicle;”, Col 11 last paragraph, “pattern matching logic”)
wherein the custom lidar scan pattern is defined by a custom frequency (Lacanze, Col 15 last para and Col 16 first para).
wherein the custom lidar scan pattern is defined by a custom sequence of lidar pulses (Lacanze, Col 15 last para and Col 16 first para).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for access control system by projecting a light pattern into the surrounding of the vehicle as taught by Karurmath with utilizing a lidar-device and emitting a custom lidar pattern as taught by Lacaze, and further uses the method taught by Lacaze for defining a custom lidar scan pattern and verifying the vehicle (where in response the infrastructure object implements the action) by matching the emitted custom scan lidar pattern with the expected pattern, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the accuracy and safety of the vehicle authentication.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karurmath, in view of Lacaze, further in view of Lin, CN 105840042 B, hereinafter “Lin”.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, combination of Karurmath and Lacanze teaches (See rejection for claim 1), however, it doesn’t explicitly teach determining whether the infrastructure object implemented the action successfully, and wherein autonomously controlling the vehicle is performed responsive to determining that the infrastructure object implemented the action successfully.
Nevertheless, Lin teaches:
determining whether the infrastructure object implemented the action successfully (Examiner’s Note: the recited limitation “determining whether the infrastructure object implemented the action successfully” has been interpreted as determining/ensuring that the garage door/gate opens successfully/completely, See Lin, at least [0002], [0012]-[0013]-[0017], “determines that the garage door has been successfully opened”, [0020])
wherein autonomously controlling the vehicle is performed responsive to determining that the infrastructure object implemented the action successfully ([0014], “When the garage door control module determines that the garage door has been successfully opened, the garage door control device calls the first data transmission module to send a garage door opening success signal to the vehicle communication device so that the vehicle communication device prompts the vehicle to pass through the garage door.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for access control system by projecting a light pattern into the surrounding of the vehicle as taught by Karurmath with utilizing a lidar-device and emitting a custom lidar pattern as taught by Lacaze, and further use the step of determining if the action (opening the garage door) is implemented successfully before autonomously navigating, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the safety of the vehicle authentication and autonomous driving.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karurmath, in view of Lacaze, further in view of Leng et al., US 20240134011, hereinafter “Leng”.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Modified Karurmath teaches claims 1 and 19, however Karurmath doesn’t teach wherein emitting the custom lidar scan pattern associated with the infrastructure object comprises: acquiring, by the lidar device, a point cloud of the infrastructure object, using a standard lidar scan pattern; normalizing the standard lidar scan pattern based on a location of the vehicle relative to a location of the infrastructure object; selecting the custom lidar scan pattern from a plurality of custom lidar scan patterns based on the infrastructure object; and causing the lidar device to emit the custom lidar scan pattern.
However, Lacanze teaches:
selecting the custom lidar scan pattern from a plurality of custom lidar scan patterns based on the infrastructure object; and causing the lidar device to emit the custom lidar scan pattern (Lacanze, Claim 1, “a memory storing a first set of data, the first set of data comprising a plurality of unique LIDAR patterns and, for each unique LIDAR pattern in the first set of data, corresponding identifying information indicative of the LIDAR device that projects said LIDAR pattern;” “detect, at the first point in time and via the at least one sensor, a second data being emitted by the second vehicle, wherein the second data comprises at least a first LIDAR pattern being projected by a LIDAR device of the second vehicle as it travels along a route through the environment”.
Further, although Lacanze also teaches acquiring a point of cloud a terrain environment, however, Leng more explicitly teaches:
wherein emitting the custom lidar scan pattern associated with the infrastructure object comprises: acquiring, by the lidar device, a point cloud of the infrastructure object, using a standard lidar scan pattern ([0003], “LiDAR system to scan the surrounding environment and produce images or point clouds.”, [0037], “A scanning-based LiDAR system […] to detect objects in a field-of-view (FOV).”, [0043], “A short-range radar is useful in detecting objects located near the vehicle, such as other vehicles, buildings, walls, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.”, [0039]-[0041], [0067], __standard lidar scan pattern is interpreted according to paragraph [0051] of the present specification__)
normalizing the standard lidar scan pattern based on a location of the vehicle relative to a location of the infrastructure object ([0034] "The control device can selectively adjust transmission orientations to achieve configurable scanning patterns and create customized high density point cloud regions", [0136] "shapes of scanning patterns and point cloud density distributions are highly customizable. This facilitates the LiDAR system to fulfill complicated perception requirements", __Note: According to paragraph [0052] of the present specification, normalizing the lidar pattern has been interpreted as adjusting or correcting the scan pattern based on the location/distance of the vehicle relative to the object__);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for access control system by projecting a light pattern into the vehicle’s surrounding, as taught by Karurmath with utilizing a lidar-device that emits a custom lidar pattern, as taught by Lacaze. Further, it would have been obvious to employ the well-known steps of detecting an object in the environment by acquiring a point cloud and adjusting the scan pattern based on the vehicle's location so that it is positioned and angled correctly relative to the object, as taught by Leng. These modifications would have had a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing Lidar accuracy, thereby improving the accuracy of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and if rewritten in independent form including 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: None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teach the combination of limitations recited in claim 5. In particular, no reference found to teach the specific limitations of:
initiating a remote system to acquire an image of the infrastructure object while the custom lidar scan pattern is emitted;
verifying a luminance change in the image of the infrastructure object matches an expected luminance change based on the custom lidar scan pattern with the infrastructure object; and responsive to verifying that the luminance change in the image of the infrastructure object matches the expected luminance change, causing, by the remote system, the infrastructure object to implement the action.
The following references are the most relevant prior art found and are representative of the current state of the art:
Lee, US20220185324A1, discloses techniques for merging Lidar information and camera information for autonomous annotation. According to paragraph [0038] of Lee, the discloses annotation system can be used to map lidar information onto camera information (i.e. an image from a camera on a vehicle) to identify the objects. Further in paragraph [0102]-[0103] teaches comparing the image and the data points from the lidar system output, however, Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose “an expected luminance change based on the custom lidar scan pattern with the infrastructure object” and it fails to teach the verification step of whether a luminance change in the image of the infrastructure object matches an expected luminance change based on the custom lidar scan pattern associated with the infrastructure object.
Ferreira et al, US20200284883A1, discloses technical field related to lidar systems and methods that use light detection and ranging technology. For example, in paragraph [2313]-[2314] and [2350], Ferreira suggests comparing the provided information form the camera and the Lidar sensor for performing object object recognition and classification, however, Ferreira fails to teach or suggest verifying a luminance change in the image of the infrastructure object matches an expected luminance change based on the custom lidar scan pattern associated with the infrastructure object;
Hicks, US10491885B1, discloses a method for lidar return data post processing using camera data, however, it doesn’t suggest or disclose a remote system to acquire an image of the infrastructure object while the custom lidar scan pattern is emitted; and verifying a luminance change in the image of the infrastructure object matches an expected luminance change based on the custom lidar scan pattern with the infrastructure object;
Barr, US 20240103176, discloses monitoring a local environment using a number of sensors and teaches illuminating an object with a laser and using a camera to take a picture of the object at the moment it's illuminated by the laser, however, it doesn't teach when the infrastructure object failed to respond to the previous lidar signal, a remote system acquire an image of the infrastructure to confirm the vehicle is emitting the customized lidar scan pattern and cause the infrastructure to implement the action.
Consequently, no single reference or combination of references in the prior art teaches or suggest the combination of limitations recited in claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights