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 Claims
This communication is in response to the Application Filed on 12/02/2024.
Claims 1–20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on 12/02/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2024, and 07/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220099838 A1, hereafter, "Kim") in view of Qi et al. (US 12073575 B2, hereafter, "Qi"), further in view of Zhou et al. (US 11645815 B2, hereafter, "Zhou"), and further in view of Orlowski et al. (US 20190004166 A1, hereafter, "Orlowski").
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle (See Kim, ¶ [0139], an autonomous driving system for controlling a vehicle to travel autonomously while detecting obstacles present ahead of the vehicle), the apparatus comprising:
a sensor configured to obtain virtual boxes respectively corresponding to a plurality of external objects (See Kim, ¶ [0049], Hereinafter, a method and device 600 for tracking an object using a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor 500. ¶ [0069], The method and device 600 for tracking an object according to the embodiments may track “M” target objects. Here, “M” is a positive integer of 1 or more. ¶ [0064], After step 200, the shape analysis unit 630 generates information on a plurality of segment boxes for each channel using the result of clustering from the clustering unit 620 (step 300)); and
a processor configured to (See Kim, ¶ [0139], The vehicle device 700 may control the vehicle 1000 based on the determined information on an object, received from the object-tracking device 600. Note: the system would need a processor to execute any of the steps of the system):
determine an interest virtual box among the virtual boxes based on at least one of an operating state of the vehicle, a location of an external object, or a size of a virtual box corresponding to the external object (See Kim, ¶ [0095], After step 410, the candidate selection unit 646 or 646A may select candidates for the associated segment box among the plurality of segment boxes at the current time t using the correlation indices calculated in the correlation index calculation unit 644, i.e. the first to third correlation indices, and may output information on the selected candidate segment boxes to the final selection unit 648 (step 420). Note: this compares the box points which the examiner interprets as based on the location);
[determine a first distribution of contour points, in a first coordinate system, that forms the interest virtual box, wherein the first coordinate system is centered on the interest virtual box;
determine a second distribution of the contour points, in a second coordinate system, wherein the second coordinate system is centered on the contour points;
validate the interest virtual box based on at least one of a heading direction of the interest virtual box within a designated frame, a location of the interest virtual box, the first distribution, or the second distribution;
determine, based on the validation, whether to output the interest virtual box];
generate a signal indicating the interest virtual box (See Kim, ¶ [0139], The vehicle device 700 may control the vehicle 1000 based on the determined information on an object, received from the object-tracking device 600); and
control, based on the signal, the autonomous driving of the vehicle (See Kim, ¶ [0139], The vehicle device 700 may control the vehicle 1000 based on the determined information on an object, received from the object-tracking device 600).
However, Kim fails to teach determine a first distribution of contour points, in a first coordinate system, that forms the interest virtual box, wherein the first coordinate system is centered on the interest virtual box; determine a second distribution of the contour points, in a second coordinate system, wherein the second coordinate system is centered on the contour points; validate the interest virtual box based on at least one of a heading direction of the interest virtual box within a designated frame, a location of the interest virtual box, the first distribution, or the second distribution; determine, based on the validation, whether to output the interest virtual box.
Qi, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determine a first distribution of contour points, in a first coordinate system, that forms the interest virtual box, wherein the first coordinate system is centered on the interest virtual box (See Qi, [Col. 4, ln. 27–31], In some implementations, the three-dimensional object label can be a three-dimensional region indicated by individual contours or a three-dimensional distribution of 30 key points that indicate the position and geometry of the object. [Col. 11, ln. 29–31], In the box-specific coordinate system, the +X axis is the orientation direction of the selected initial bounding box, and the origin is the center of the box);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s reference to determine a first distribution of contour points, in a first coordinate system, that forms the interest virtual box, wherein the first coordinate system is centered on the interest virtual box based on the method of Qi’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately process laser data for accurate and efficient identification (See Qi, [Col. 3, ln. 34–55]).
However, Kim and Qi fail to teach determine a second distribution of the contour points, in a second coordinate system, wherein the second coordinate system is centered on the contour points; validate the interest virtual box based on at least one of a heading direction of the interest virtual box within a designated frame, a location of the interest virtual box, the first distribution, or the second distribution; determine, based on the validation, whether to output the interest virtual box.
Zhou, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determine a second distribution of the contour points, in a second coordinate system, wherein the second coordinate system is centered on the contour points (See Zhou, [Col. 10, ln. 10–14], As shown in FIG. 6, the first coordinate system determined by three-dimensional elliptic fitting is a coordinate system that uses the center of the point cloud of the three-dimensional object as the origin of coordinates. Note: the center of the point cloud if the center of the points which would be the center of the contour points);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s and Qi’s reference to determine a second distribution of the contour points, in a second coordinate system, wherein the second coordinate system is centered on the contour points based on the method of Zhou’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the segmentation accuracy of objects (See Zhou, [Col. 5, ln. 36–45]).
However, Kim, Qi and Zhou fail to teach validate the interest virtual box based on at least one of a heading direction of the interest virtual box within a designated frame, a location of the interest virtual box, the first distribution, or the second distribution; determine, based on the validation, whether to output the interest virtual box.
Orlowski, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: validate the interest virtual box based on at least one of a heading direction of the interest virtual box within a designated frame (See Orlowski, ¶ [0100], As mentioned above, after the identification of valid orientation candidates Δi/γi each of them may be assigned a cost of fit value. ¶ [0101], a) In a simple method the deviation of heading candidate γi from reference angle β is determined and the smallest selected), a location of the interest virtual box, the first distribution, or the second distribution;
determine, based on the validation, whether to output the interest virtual box (See Orlowski, ¶ [0100], As mentioned above, after the identification of valid orientation candidates Δi/γi each of them may be assigned a cost of fit value. ¶ [0101], a) In a simple method the deviation of heading candidate γi from reference angle β is determined and the smallest selected);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s and Zhou’s reference to validate the interest virtual box based on at least one of a heading direction of the interest virtual box within a designated frame, a location of the interest virtual box, the first distribution, or the second distribution; determine, based on the validation, whether to output the interest virtual box based on the method of Orlowski’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve automotive perception systems for driver safety (See Orlowski, ¶ [0002–0004]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orlowski with Kim, Qi and Zhou to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Qi, Zhou and Orlowski teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
[form the first coordinate system based on an angle between the heading direction of the interest virtual box and a vehicle coordinate system centered on the vehicle].
However, Kim, Qi and Zhou fail to teach form the first coordinate system based on an angle between the heading direction of the interest virtual box and a vehicle coordinate system centered on the vehicle.
Orlowski, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: form the first coordinate system based on an angle between the heading direction of the interest virtual box and a vehicle coordinate system centered on the vehicle (See Orlowski, ¶ [0078], So, to recap, this step involves formation of a bounding box and a transformation (x and y positions of detections) to a local object coordinate system which is oriented along the reference angle (based on original heading/orientation) and has the origin e.g. in the nearest detection).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s and Zhou’s reference to form the first coordinate system based on an angle between the heading direction of the interest virtual box and a vehicle coordinate system centered on the vehicle based on the method of Orlowski’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve automotive perception systems for driver safety (See Orlowski, ¶ [0002–0004]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orlowski with Kim, Qi and Zhou to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to the claim 11, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to the claim 15, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220099838 A1, hereafter, "Kim") in view of Qi et al. (US 12073575 B2, hereafter, "Qi"), Zhou et al. (US 11645815 B2, hereafter, "Zhou"), Orlowski et al. (US 20190004166 A1, hereafter, "Orlowski"), and further in view of Baeg et al. (US 20220189040 A1, hereafter, “Baeg”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Qi, Zhou and Orlowski teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
[form the second coordinate system based on a minimum value of x-axis of a vehicle coordinate system of the contour points, a minimum value of y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, a maximum value the x-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, and a maximum value of the y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, and
wherein the vehicle coordinate system is configured to be centered on the vehicle, wherein the x-axis corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and wherein the y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis and corresponds to a transverse axis of the vehicle].
However, Kim fails to teach form the second coordinate system based on a minimum value of x-axis of a vehicle coordinate system of the contour points, a minimum value of y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, a maximum value the x-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, and a maximum value of the y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, and wherein the vehicle coordinate system is configured to be centered on the vehicle, wherein the x-axis corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and wherein the y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis and corresponds to a transverse axis of the vehicle.
Qi, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: form the second coordinate system based on a minimum value of x-axis of a vehicle coordinate system of the contour points (See Qi, [Col. 10, ln. 4–9], The static object labeling engine 160 then generates a network input by transforming each of the extracted points from the second coordinate system to a third coordinate system that is centered at a particular point in the identified initial three-dimensional region. [Col. 11, ln. 29–31], In the box-specific coordinate system, the +X axis is the orientation direction of the selected initial bounding box, and the origin is the center of the box. Note: the first coordinate system is the sensor or vehicle coordinate system which the examiner interprets as being based on the X axis minimum and maximum since its based off the coordinate system);
wherein the vehicle coordinate system is configured to be centered on the vehicle, wherein the x-axis corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and wherein the y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis and corresponds to a transverse axis of the vehicle (See Qi, [Col. 6, ln. 7–12], For example, an initial three-dimensional region can be a three-dimensional bounding box that indicates the presence, position, and geometry of an object, e.g., a vehicle, detected from the frame. [Col. 4, ln. 35–37], three-dimensional boxes or regions made up of individual contours, in the point clouds that correspond to objects. [Col. 11, ln. 29–31], In the box-specific coordinate system, the +X axis is the orientation direction of the selected initial bounding box, and the origin is the center of the box. [Col. 5, ln. 33–38], Each point can identify the location of the point in a coordinate system that is centered around an object on which the one or more sensors are located, e.g., an autonomous vehicle, and, optionally, additional features of the point, e.g., intensity, second return, and so on).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s and Zhou’s reference to form the second coordinate system based on a minimum value of x-axis of a vehicle coordinate system of the contour points; wherein the vehicle coordinate system is configured to be centered on the vehicle, wherein the x-axis corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and wherein the y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis and corresponds to a transverse axis of the vehicle based on the method of Qi’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately process laser data for accurate and efficient identification (See Qi, [Col. 3, ln. 34–55]).
However, Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski fail to teach a minimum value of y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, a maximum value the x-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, and a maximum value of the y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system.
Baeg, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: a minimum value of y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, a maximum value the x-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, and a maximum value of the y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system (See Baeg, ¶ [0054], After step 12, a reference point of the ROI 20 is selected (step 14). For example, as shown in FIG. 2A, the reference point RP of the ROI 20 may be selected. Here, the reference point RP may be located at the point where the maximum value in the x-axis direction and the maximum value in the y-axis direction in the ROI 20 meet).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s, Zhou’s and Orlowski’s reference to a minimum value of y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system, and a maximum value of the y-axis of the vehicle coordinate system based on the method of Baeg’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately determine the heading angle of a vehicle (See Baeg, ¶ [0144]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baeg with Kim, Qi, Zhou, Orlowski and Baeg to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected the same as claim 2 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to the claim 12, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 2 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220099838 A1, hereafter, "Kim") in view of Qi et al. (US 12073575 B2, hereafter, "Qi"), Zhou et al. (US 11645815 B2, hereafter, "Zhou"), Orlowski et al. (US 20190004166 A1, hereafter, "Orlowski"), and further in view of Clawson et al. (US 20230347880 A1, hereafter, "Clawson"), and Heisele et al. (US 20170103269 A1, hereafter, "Heisele").
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Qi, Zhou and Orlowski teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
[determine the interest virtual box based on the vehicle being driven in a straight line], the virtual box being located within a region of interest (ROI) (See Kim, ¶ [0062], After step 100, the clustering unit 620 groups the point cloud data, which is the LiDAR data consisting of a plurality of points for the object obtained through the LiDAR sensor 500, into meaningful units according to a predetermined criterion (step 200). ¶ [0064], After step 200, the shape analysis unit 630 generates information on a plurality of segment boxes for each channel using the result of clustering from the clustering unit 620 (step 300). Note: Examiner is interpreting the clustering as the ROI), [a width of the virtual box exceeding a first length, and a length of the virtual box exceeding a second length].
However, Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski fail to teach determine the interest virtual box based on the vehicle being driven in a straight line, a width of the virtual box exceeding a first length, and a length of the virtual box exceeding a second length.
Clawson, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determine the interest virtual box based on the vehicle being driven in a straight line (See Clawson, ¶ [0061], For example, because the trajectory 306 was a substantially straight line at the stopping point 308, the vehicle computing system may use a substantially straight line as trajectory data, along with bounding box data, to determine the buffer regions 320 and 322).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s, Zhou’s and Orlowski’s reference to determine the interest virtual box based on the vehicle being driven in a straight line based on the method of Clawson’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to increase the accuracy and efficiency of performing object detection and collision avoidance (See Clawson, ¶ [0007]).
However, Kim, Qi, Zhou, Orlowski and Clawson fail to teach a width of the virtual box exceeding a first length, and a length of the virtual box exceeding a second length.
Heisele, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: a width of the virtual box exceeding a first length, and a length of the virtual box exceeding a second length (See Heisele, ¶ [0086], More specifically, the traffic participant classification module 130 can analyze the size(s) of the revised bounding box(es) to determine if the size (e.g., length and width) of the revised bounding box(es) is between the threshold measurement values, above the maximum threshold value, or below the minimum threshold value).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s, Zhou’s, Orlowski’s and Clawson’s reference to a width of the virtual box exceeding a first length, and a length of the virtual box exceeding a second length based on the method of Heisele’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been for preventative action for avoidance of a potential collision (See Heisele, ¶ [0001–0005]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Heisele with Kim, Qi, Zhou, Orlowski and Clawson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Qi, Zhou, Orlowski, Clawson and Heisele teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to:
[determine the virtual box corresponding to the external object within the ROI, wherein the ROI is spaced from a front of the vehicle by a first distance and spaced from a side of the vehicle by a second distance].
However, Kim, Qi and Zhou fail to teach determine the virtual box corresponding to the external object within the ROI, wherein the ROI is spaced from a front of the vehicle by a first distance and spaced from a side of the vehicle by a second distance.
Orlowski, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determine the virtual box corresponding to the external object within the ROI, wherein the ROI is spaced from a front of the vehicle by a first distance and spaced from a side of the vehicle by a second distance (See Orlowski, ¶ [0045], The origin may be located at the center of the front bumper 3 of the host vehicle 4 as shown by FIG. 2. The X-axis is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. ¶ [0069], In this step, raw detection data (representing detection points assumed to be on the outside perimeter of said target vehicle) are thus the point detections which belong to a target vehicle. So, this method may use techniques to identify a cluster of point detections likely to belong to the same vehicle. Note: that since the origin is the front of the vehicle it is a distance in front and to the side the vehicle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s and Zhou’s reference to determine the virtual box corresponding to the external object within the ROI, wherein the ROI is spaced from a front of the vehicle by a first distance and spaced from a side of the vehicle by a second distance based on the method of Orlowski’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve automotive perception systems for driver safety (See Orlowski, ¶ [0002–0004]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orlowski with Kim, Qi and Zhou to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same as claim 3 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to the claim 13, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 3 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same as claim 4 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to the claim 14, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 4 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220099838 A1, hereafter, "Kim") in view of Qi et al. (US 12073575 B2, hereafter, "Qi"), Zhou et al. (US 11645815 B2, hereafter, "Zhou"), Orlowski et al. (US 20190004166 A1, hereafter, "Orlowski"), and further in view of Lo et al. (US 20180345958 A1, hereafter, "Lo").
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Qi, Zhou and Orlowski teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
[determine whether to output the interest virtual box based on an angle between a first heading direction of the interest virtual box in a frame and a second heading direction of the interest virtual box in a next frame exceeding a designated angle].
However, Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski fail to teach determine whether to output the interest virtual box based on an angle between a first heading direction of the interest virtual box in a frame and a second heading direction of the interest virtual box in a next frame exceeding a designated angle.
Lo, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determine whether to output the interest virtual box based on an angle between a first heading direction of the interest virtual box in a frame and a second heading direction of the interest virtual box in a next frame exceeding a designated angle (See Lo, ¶ [0065], For example, when individual particles are first sampled, they are initially assigned random motion (e.g., heading direction, speed). After a first simulation is conducted for consecutive frames, the particle filter 330 computes weights of individual particles and resamples the particles according to the computed weights. The motion of each individual particle determined at each following consecutive frame can be determined based on adjusting the motion detected at a prior frame using a standard deviation that reflects the change in motion between consecutive frames).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s, Zhou’s and Orlowski’s reference to determine whether to output the interest virtual box based on an angle between a first heading direction of the interest virtual box in a frame and a second heading direction of the interest virtual box in a next frame exceeding a designated angle based on the method of Lo’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately predict collisions (See Lo, ¶ [0002 and 0003]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lo with Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Qi, Zhou and Orlowski teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
[validate, based on hysteresis of the interest virtual box, the heading direction of the interest virtual box].
However, Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski fail to teach validate, based on hysteresis of the interest virtual box, the heading direction of the interest virtual box.
Lo, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: validate, based on hysteresis of the interest virtual box, the heading direction of the interest virtual box (See Lo, ¶ [0065], For example, when individual particles are first sampled, they are initially assigned random motion (e.g., heading direction, speed). After a first simulation is conducted for consecutive frames, the particle filter 330 computes weights of individual particles and resamples the particles according to the computed weights. The motion of each individual particle determined at each following consecutive frame can be determined based on adjusting the motion detected at a prior frame using a standard deviation that reflects the change in motion between consecutive frames. Note: Hysteresis is just looking and taking into account history. In this case the examiner is interpreting it as taking into account prior frames).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s, Zhou’s and Orlowski’s reference to validate, based on hysteresis of the interest virtual box, the heading direction of the interest virtual box based on the method of Lo’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately predict collisions (See Lo, ¶ [0002 and 0003]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lo with Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to the claim 16, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same as claim 10 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to the claim 20, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 10 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220099838 A1, hereafter, "Kim") in view of Qi et al. (US 12073575 B2, hereafter, "Qi"), Zhou et al. (US 11645815 B2, hereafter, "Zhou"), Orlowski et al. (US 20190004166 A1, hereafter, "Orlowski"), and further in view of Clawson et al. (US 20230347880 A1, hereafter, "Clawson").
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Qi, Zhou and Orlowski teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
[determine, based on the external object driving in a straight line, whether to output the interest virtual box, wherein the interest virtual box corresponds to the external object].
However, Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski fail to teach determine, based on the external object driving in a straight line, whether to output the interest virtual box, wherein the interest virtual box corresponds to the external object.
Clawson, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determine, based on the external object driving in a straight line, whether to output the interest virtual box, wherein the interest virtual box corresponds to the external object (See Clawson, ¶ [0061], For example, because the trajectory 306 was a substantially straight line at the stopping point 308, the vehicle computing system may use a substantially straight line as trajectory data, along with bounding box data, to determine the buffer regions 320 and 322).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s, Zhou’s and Orlowski’s reference to determine, based on the external object driving in a straight line, whether to output the interest virtual box, wherein the interest virtual box corresponds to the external object based on the method of Clawson’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to increase the accuracy and efficiency of performing object detection and collision avoidance (See Clawson, ¶ [0007]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Clawson with Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same as claim 7 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 7 are equally applicable to the claim 17, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 7 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220099838 A1, hereafter, "Kim") in view of Qi et al. (US 12073575 B2, hereafter, "Qi"), Zhou et al. (US 11645815 B2, hereafter, "Zhou"), Orlowski et al. (US 20190004166 A1, hereafter, "Orlowski"), Clawson et al. (US 20230347880 A1, hereafter, "Clawson"), and further in view of Wang (US 20230280457 A1, hereafter, "Wang").
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Qi, Zhou, Orlowski and Clawson teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to:
[determine that the external object is driving in the straight line based on an absolute longitudinal speed of the external object being greater than or equal to a designated speed and a representative point included in the interest virtual box moving in a specific direction along a specific trajectory during a plurality of frames].
However, Kim, Qi, Zhou, Orlowski and Clawson fail to teach determine that the external object is driving in the straight line based on an absolute longitudinal speed of the external object being greater than or equal to a designated speed and a representative point included in the interest virtual box moving in a specific direction along a specific trajectory during a plurality of frames.
Wang, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determine that the external object is driving in the straight line based on an absolute longitudinal speed of the external object being greater than or equal to a designated speed and a representative point included in the interest virtual box moving in a specific direction along a specific trajectory during a plurality of frames (See Wang, ¶ [0017], In certain instances, velocities of a tracked object may include different points that may move in a same direction with a same velocity or that may move in slightly different directions with different velocities. This is because an object may move only in one linear direction, may rotate, or may have motion that includes both linear and rotational components. Location data and velocity data associated with different points of an object may be used to identify whether an object is moving in a straight line, is rotating, or is moving in a direction while rotating. Rotational components of velocity may be identified by identifying that a first point and a second point of an object are moving with different velocities along vectors that may be in different directions).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s, Zhou’s, Orlowski’s and Clawson’s reference to determine that the external object is driving in the straight line based on an absolute longitudinal speed of the external object being greater than or equal to a designated speed and a representative point included in the interest virtual box moving in a specific direction along a specific trajectory during a plurality of frames based on the method of Wang’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to forecast object trajectories (See Wang, ¶ [0001 and 0002]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Kim, Qi, Zhou, Orlowski and Clawson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same as claim 8 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 8 are equally applicable to the claim 18, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 8 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20220099838 A1, hereafter, "Kim") in view of Qi et al. (US 12073575 B2, hereafter, "Qi"), Zhou et al. (US 11645815 B2, hereafter, "Zhou"), Orlowski et al. (US 20190004166 A1, hereafter, "Orlowski"), and further in view of Scott et al. (US 20220024486 A1, hereafter, "Scott").
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Qi, Zhou and Orlowski teaches the apparatus of claim 1, [wherein a plurality of layers are formed by planes parallel to a x-y plane, wherein the x-y plane is formed by x-axis and y-axis, wherein the x-axis corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle and perpendicular to the y-axis, wherein the y-axis corresponds to a transverse axis of the vehicle, wherein a number of the plurality of layers is a designated number, wherein the plurality of layers comprise the interest virtual box], and wherein the processor is configured to:
identify at least one of the first distribution in each of the plurality of layers or the second distribution in each of the plurality of layers (See Kim, ¶ [0062], After step 100, the clustering unit 620 groups the point cloud data, which is the LiDAR data consisting of a plurality of points for the object obtained through the LiDAR sensor 500, into meaningful units according to a predetermined criterion (step 200)).
However, Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski fail to teach wherein a plurality of layers are formed by planes parallel to a x-y plane, wherein the x-y plane is formed by x-axis and y-axis, wherein the x-axis corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle and perpendicular to the y-axis, wherein the y-axis corresponds to a transverse axis of the vehicle, wherein a number of the plurality of layers is a designated number, wherein the plurality of layers comprise the interest virtual box.
Scott, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein a plurality of layers are formed by planes parallel to a x-y plane, wherein the x-y plane is formed by x-axis and y-axis, wherein the x-axis corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle and perpendicular to the y-axis, wherein the y-axis corresponds to a transverse axis of the vehicle, wherein a number of the plurality of layers is a designated number, wherein the plurality of layers comprise the interest virtual box (See Scott, ¶ [0122], At each iteration the point cloud is segmented into two pre-defined boxes symmetric about the robot frame's xz-axis, wherein the x-axis points in the forward direction (with respect to current operation) and the z-axis points in the upward direction, and the origin of the robot frame is located at the geometric center of the autonomous ground vehicle. Note: Examiner is interpreting the segmentation as each layer).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s, Qi’s, Zhou’s and Orlowski’s reference to wherein a plurality of layers are formed by planes parallel to a x-y plane, wherein the x-y plane is formed by x-axis and y-axis, wherein the x-axis corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle and perpendicular to the y-axis, wherein the y-axis corresponds to a transverse axis of the vehicle, wherein a number of the plurality of layers is a designated number, wherein the plurality of layers comprise the interest virtual box based on the method of Scott’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately traverse ground surface environment (See Scott, ¶ [0003–0009]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Scott with Kim, Qi, Zhou and Orlowski to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same as claim 9 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 9 are equally applicable to the claim 19, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 9 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Derbisz (US 20220171975 A1) teaches a method for determining a semantic free space in an environment of a vehicle comprises capturing a two dimensional visual image from the environment of the vehicle via a camera and determining a limitation of a free space within the visual image. Via a sensor, distance data of objects are captured and assigned to the visual image, and the limitation of the free space is transferred to a bird's-eye view based on the assigned distance data. For objects identified in the visual image a respective bounding box and a respective classification are determined. Objects limiting the free space are selected, and their bounding box is assigned to the limitation of the free space in the bird's-eye view. Finally, segments of the limitation of the free space are classified according to the classification of each bounding box of the selected objects.
Molinari (US 11410356 B2) teaches system, methods, and other embodiments described herein relate to improving a representation of objects in a surrounding environment. In one embodiment, a method includes, in response to receiving sensor data depicting the surrounding environment including a corridor that defines a left boundary and a right boundary, identifying at least one object from the sensor data. The method includes transforming segmented data from the sensor data that represents the object into a bounding box by defining the bounding box according to six points relative to the corridor. The method includes providing the six points of the bounding box as a reduced representation of the object.
Henke et al. (US 12179795 B2) teaches a trajectory for an autonomous machine may be evaluated for safety based at least on determining whether the autonomous machine would be capable of occupying points of the trajectory in space-time while still being able to avoid a potential future collision with one or more objects in the environment through use of one or more safety procedures. To do so, a point of the trajectory may be evaluated for conflict based at least on a comparison between points in space-time that correspond to the autonomous machine executing the safety procedure(s) from the point and arrival times of the one or more objects to corresponding position(s) in the environment. A trajectory may be sampled and evaluated for conflicts at various points throughout the trajectory. Based on results of one or more evaluations, the trajectory may be scored, eliminated from consideration, or otherwise considered for control of the autonomous machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION J SATCHER whose telephone number is (703)756-5849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm, Friday 5:30 am - 9:30 am PST.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/DION J SATCHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights