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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 11/29/2024. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 05/24/2024.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 11/29/2024.
Objection to Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office reviewed the claims for terms containing limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f), and no terms are being interpreted as such.
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG et al., US 20190179332, herein further known as Cheng, in view of KING et al., US 20250165869, herein further known as King.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle (¶ [0039], see also FIG. 1), a sensor configured to obtain a cluster of points (¶¶ [0050-0051], [0105], [0113]), wherein the cluster of points corresponds to an object (¶¶ [0050-0051], obstacle [01265], [0133], [0138], claims 7-9, obstacle); a processor configured to generate, based on information from the sensor (¶¶ [0045], [0050-0051], [0105]), a first virtual box, wherein the first virtual box corresponds to the object (circumscribing rectangle of the target obstacle point cloud - ¶¶ [0006-0023], [0030-0031], see also FIGS. 3A and 3B, [0061-0075], [0079-0083], [0095-0097], [0101], 0105-0107], [0110], [0113], [0115], [0118], [0120-0121], [0130], [0133], [0136-0137], [0140-0149], and claims 1-2, 4-11); obtain, based on a(¶¶ [0087], [0137], electronic device may output the direction information corresponding to the target obstacle point cloud, target circumscribing rectangle…), a heading confidence value for a heading direction of the first virtual box (confidence level of target level - ¶¶ [0012-0014], [0021-0023], [0124-0127], [0131-0138], [0147-0149]),
However, Cheng does not explicitly state a loss function, wherein the loss function is obtained by applying a designated algorithm, and wherein the loss function represents a degree of accuracy of the designated algorithm for determining the direction; obtain, based on the heading confidence value, an angle value for adjusting the heading direction; output, based on adjusting the heading direction of the first virtual box, a second virtual box, wherein the heading direction is adjusted based on the angle value; generate a signal indicating the second virtual box; and control, based on the signal, autonomous driving of the vehicle.
King teaches a loss function, wherein the loss function is obtained by applying a designated algorithm, and wherein the loss function represents a degree of accuracy of the designated algorithm for determining the direction; obtain, based on the heading confidence value, an angle value for adjusting the heading direction; output, based on adjusting the heading direction of the first virtual box, a second virtual box, wherein the heading direction is adjusted based on the angle value; generate a signal indicating the second virtual box (¶¶ [0058], neural network engine (i.e. algorithm), [0089-0094], [0118], input track boxes (i.e. first virtual box), predicted track boxes (i.e. second virtual box) [0118], track adjustment model based upon angle (i.e. heading direction is adjusted based on the angle value)); and control, based on the signal, autonomous driving of the vehicle (¶¶ [0039], [0058], generating suitable control signals for controlling the various controls in the vehicle control system).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Cheng the loss function, wherein the loss function is obtained by applying a designated algorithm, and wherein the loss function represents a degree of accuracy of the designated algorithm for determining the direction; obtain, based on the heading confidence value, an angle value for adjusting the heading direction; output, based on adjusting the heading direction of the first virtual box, a second virtual box, wherein the heading direction is adjusted based on the angle value; generate a signal indicating the second virtual box; and control, based on the signal, autonomous driving of the vehicle as taught by King.
One would be motivated to modify Cheng in view of King for the reasons stated in King paragraph [0003], a more robust system and method wherein the state of the objects dynamically changes, and improves efficiently updating the tracking and/or identifying of the object by using new measurement data. Moreover, when sensors of an autonomous vehicle obtain measurements at multiple points (i.e. cluster of points or cloud points), the more robust system and method improves efficient processing of multiple points.
Regarding claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 1. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 11 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cheng, and King, further in view of YIN et al., CN 116486381, herein further known as Yin.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cheng, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Cheng does not explicitly state obtain, based on a peak of the loss function and a valley of the loss function, the heading confidence value.
Yin teaches obtain, based on a peak of the loss function and a valley of the loss function, the heading confidence value (pages 16-17 [0192], global minimum value is relative to the local minimum value…).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Cheng the obtain, based on a peak of the loss function and a valley of the loss function, the heading confidence value as taught by Yin.
One would be motivated to modify Cheng in view of Yin for the reasons stated in Yin wherein obstacle detection and identifying the forward direction of the automobile is the key technical feature for the automobile to improve the living standard of people.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 2. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 6, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cheng, and King, further in view of HAN, CN 118823722, herein further known as Han.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cheng, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Cheng does not explicitly state obtain, heading value based on applying the heading confidence value to direction of the first virtual box, the angle value.
Han teaches obtain, heading value based on applying the heading confidence value to direction of the first virtual box, the angle value, (paragraph stating, course angle classification result with the highest confidence score is used as the course angle classification result)
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Cheng the obtain, heading value based on applying the heading confidence value to direction of the first virtual box, the angle value as taught by Han.
One would be motivated to modify Cheng in view of Han for the reasons stated in Han, more robust methods wherein the target course angle identification algorithm is only increased with little calculation amount, and the time consumption is hardly increased in the algorithm reasoning process.
Regarding claim 16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 6. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 16 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-10, 13-15, 17-20, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666