DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Original claims 1-8 filed February 24, 2025, are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 24, 2025, and September 30, 2025, are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
the communication device of claim 1,
the communication device of claim 7, and
the providing devices of claim 8.
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.
Examiner notes that the “storage device” of claim 4 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) at least because, although it covers a broad class of structures and identifies the structures by their function, the term “storage device” has a specific structural meaning in the art. See MPEP 2181, Subsection I.A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
“A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description” (MPEP 2181, Subsection IV). As explained below, claims 1-5 and 8 include at least one means-plus-function limitation that has been found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 8 also fail to comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-5 and 7-8 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 4 recites “calculate a distance between two different ones of the objects based on information related to the calculated position of the outer edge” at the last two lines.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3, which recites “calculate a distance between two of the objects based on a reference point, the reference point being set for each of the objects.”
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the distance calculated at claim 4 is the same as, or different than, the distance calculated in claim 3.
On the one hand, claim 4’s use of the article “a” suggests that the differences are different. The wording of the two limitations is also slightly different. For example, claim 3 recites that the distance is “between two of the objects” and claim 4 recites “between two different ones of the objects”. In another example, claim 3 recites that the distance is calculated “based on a reference point” and claim 4 recites that the distance is calculated “based on information related to the calculated position of the outer edge”.
On the other hand, both limitations share several similarities, which suggests that they may be the same. Both require calculating a distance between two objects. Claim 3 requires calculation based on a reference point and claim 4 requires calculation based on a calculation of an outer edge, which itself is based on “the reference point”.
In summary, it is unclear whether the distance recited in claim 4 is the same as the distance recited in claim 3 and this ambiguity makes the scope of the claim unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-8, the limitation “communication device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph – see Claim Interpretation above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification describes functions performed by a communication device but never describes any structure that performs these functions. For example, Fig. 1 and pars. [0028]-[0030] (as published) recite communication devices 103, 203, and 303 that connect data generation devices 100, 200, and 300 to a network 400, without ever describing the structure of the communication devices. In another example, par. [0052] states that “The first communication device 103 of the data generation device 100 obtains multiple observational datasets from multiple roadside cameras 920 via the external communication network 400” but does not describe any structure that performs this function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2181, Subsection III.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘Zhang’ (CN 115190219 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a data generation device (e.g., Figures 7-8), comprising:
a communication device (Examiner notes that this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose corresponding structure – see above; e.g., the server 520 of Fig. 8 performs communication to receive video datasets from cameras 510); and
processing circuitry (e.g., Fig. 8, processor 1020), wherein
the communication device is configured to obtain, from sensors, observational datasets that have been obtained by continuously observing an object from different positions (e.g., [0127]-[0128], Fig. 7, camera sensors 511 and 512 capture videos [i.e., observational datasets obtained by continual observation] from different positions of at least one target vehicle),
the processing circuitry is configured to (e.g., [0134], processor 1020 can perform all/part of the described methods) select reference data based on accuracy information related to the observational datasets (e.g., [0075]-[0078], Fig. 2, S230-240, datasets are analyzed to determine whether any include abnormal data and any abnormal data are deleted, thereby improving accuracy; The data remaining after deletion of any abnormal data are reference data), and generate a synchronized observational dataset by synchronizing the observational datasets with each other based on the reference data (e.g., Fig. 2, S250, trajectories are calculated from reference data; S260, trajectories are used to calculate time difference; S270, synchronization is performed using the time difference, the result being generation of a synchronized observational dataset), and
the synchronized observational dataset is configured to be used to calculate a position of the object corresponding to a point in time after the observational datasets were obtained (e.g., [0002], the synchronized video [i.e., the synchronized observational dataset] can be used to simulate the driving process of a vehicle [i.e., the object]; Simulation of a vehicle object’s driving includes calculating a position of the object corresponding to a point in time after the observational datasets were obtained; For at least these reasons, by being synchronized, the synchronized observational dataset generated by Zhang is within the scope of being configured to be used to calculate a position of the object corresponding to a point in time after the observational datasets were obtained; Note that the claim does not require, for example, actually performing the calculation of the position of the object).
Regarding claim 6, Examiner notes that the claim recites a method that is substantially the same as the method performed by the device of claim 1. Zhang discloses the device of claim 1 (see above). Accordingly, claim 6 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Examiner notes that the claim recites a non-transitory storage medium storing a program configured to perform functions that are substantially the same as functions performed by the device of claim 1.
Zhang discloses the device of claim 1 (see above).
Zhang further discloses implementing its device as a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for performing functions of the device (e.g., [0131]-[0137], Fig. 8, especially [0136]).
Accordingly, claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
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) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of ‘Waltzer’ (US 2024/0185720 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the data generation device according to claim 1.
Zhang further teaches that
the communication device is configured to obtain, as the observational datasets, video datasets obtained by capturing two or more objects from different positions (e.g., [0057], video of at least two roadside cameras; e.g., [0073], video can include multiple [i.e., two or more] target vehicle objects), wherein a distance between the two or more objects is changing (e.g., [0075]-[0076], the vehicles are moving at least a minimum distance, such that distances between them are changing), and
the processing circuitry is configured to select, as the reference data, from still image datasets included in each of the video datasets, a still image dataset (As explained in the rejection of claim 1, the reference data is the video data remaining after deletion of abnormal data at S240; Note that video data is made up of a sequence of frames, each of which is a still image, so a video with abnormal data removed is a still image dataset)
Zhang does not explicitly teach that each of the objects has a resolution that is greater than or equal to a threshold value.
However, Waltzer is similar to Zhang in that it also detects vehicle objects in videos (e.g., [0036] et seq.) and Waltzer further teaches that
“In some embodiments, only objects having a size bigger than a predetermined object size are detected and analyzed. Objects having a size smaller than the predetermined object size may be ignored for further processing. For example, object 315 and object 305 may be a water bottle, which may be smaller than the predetermined object size, and they can be ignored from further processing by object detection system 118.” ([0040).
In the context of the vehicle detection and tracking being performed by Zhang and Waltzer, small objects like water bottles are spurious detections. Excluding small objects from further processing advantageously avoids wasting time and computation on attempting to track them.
Note that an object’s resolution refers to its size in an image. For example, an object covering a region 20 pixels wide and 45 pixels high in an image is said to have a size of 20x45 pixels or, equivalently, a resolution of 20x45 pixels.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Zhang with the small/low-resolution object ignoring of Waltzer in order to improve the device with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a device that advantageously avoided wasting time and computation on attempting to track spurious detections. This technique for improving the device of Zhang was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Waltzer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhang and Waltzer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Waltzer teaches the data generation device according to claim 2.
At step S210 of Fig. 2, Zhang acquires two videos (e.g., [0056]-[0057], [0070]-[0071]). As one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, a video covers a predetermined period of time. For example, a video with 30 frames captured at 30 fps covers 1 second.
At step S240 of Fig. 2, Zhang deletes any abnormal data (e.g., [0077]). In the rejection of claim 1, Examiner mapped any data remaining after this deletion to the reference data. However, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, it is possible that all data in a video is abnormal. For example, a video may show a single vehicle parked on a street, which is deleted as abnormal because the parked vehicle is not moving (e.g., [0076]). In such a case, all of the data is deleted and no data remains to be used for synchronization at S270.
Put another way, generation of the synchronized observational dataset is skipped when failing to acquire the observational dataset containing the reference data within a predetermined time.
For at least these reasons, the teachings of Zhang in view of Waltzer as applied above fall within the scope of claim 5.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Waltzer as applied above, and further in view of ‘Liu’ (US 2017/0295301 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Waltzer teaches the data generation device according to claim 2.
Zhang further teaches calculating distances between reference points set for each object (e.g., [0076], distances between trajectory points are calculated; Fig. 4 shows an example of trajectory points, each point being a reference point for a vehicle’s position), but the distances are between multiple observations of the same object, rather than between two different objects as required by the claim.
Waltzer also further teaches calculating distances between reference points set for each object (e.g., [0042], Fig. 3A, D1 is between reference points (x2,y2) and (x1,y1) of a same vehicle observed in separate images 301 and 311), but the distances are also between multiple observations of the same object, rather than between two different objects as required by the claim.
However, Liu does teach calculating a distance between two different objects based on a reference point, the reference point being set for each of the objects (e.g., [0029], Fig. 2B, distance 700 is calculated between objects 500 and 600; Note that Fig. 2B represents the objects as their reference points and a distance between objects is necessarily based on reference points set somewhere on the objects; Also see, e.g., object coordinate positions at [0035]).
Zhang synchronizes its videos by identifying an event common to both: intersection of a vehicle’s trajectories (e.g., Fig. 4). Zhang increases the accuracy of its synchronization by identifying time differences for multiple intersection events (e.g., [0101]-[0102]) and averaging them (e.g., [0106], [0108]). Liu teaches further ways to define events for video synchronization, including based on an inter-object distance (e.g., [0029], Fig. 2B). Individual time difference measurements may be noisy. Averaging multiple time difference measurements together, as taught by Zhang, can reduce the influence of noise and improve accuracy. Adding time differences calculated based on inter-object distances, as taught by Liu, would advantageously increase the number of time differences that could be calculated and averaged by Zhang, thereby providing further noise reduction and accuracy improvement.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Zhang in view of Waltzer as applied above with the inter-object distance synchronization event detection of Liu in order to improve the device with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a device that could produce more time difference measurements for averaging, thereby providing further noise reduction and synchronization accuracy improvement. This technique for improving the device of Zhang in view of Waltzer was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Zhang and Liu.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhang, Waltzer and Liu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of ‘Wang’ (“Smart Mobility Digital Twin Based Automated Vehicle Navigation System: A Proof of Concept,” published 21 February 2024).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches the data generation device according to claim 1 (see above) and teaches that it is configured to obtain the observational datasets from the sensor and generate the synchronized observational dataset by synchronizing the observational datasets with each other (see rejection of claim 1).
Zhang suggests using its data generation device in conjunction with a vehicle simulation (e.g., [0002]) but does not teach many details of the simulation.
In particular, Zhang does not teach that its data generation device is included in a traffic service providing system further comprising:
a controller; and
providing devices, wherein
the data generation device is configured to:
send the synchronized observational dataset to the controller,
the controller is configured to generate predicted moving body information using the received synchronized observational dataset, and
the controller and the providing devices are configured to communicate with each other, thereby providing a traffic service that assists a user of each of the providing devices based on the predicted moving body information.
However, Wang does teach a traffic service providing system (e.g., Fig. 1) comprising:
a data generation device (e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraph spanning pages 4350-4351, roadside unit (RSU) edges use roadside sensors to monitor traffic flow; Zhang similarly uses roadside sensors to monitor traffic flow [i.e., trajectories of vehicles]);
a controller (e.g., Fig. 1, cloud computing); and
providing devices (Note that this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) – see Claim Interpretation above; The corresponding structure includes a vehicle – see, e.g., [0045] et seq. of the specification (as published); Wang: e.g., Fig. 1, vehicles [referred to as connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) and/or CAV edges]), wherein
the data generation device is configured to:
send the synchronized observational dataset to the controller (e.g., Fig. 1, uplink from edge computing to cloud computing; also see, e.g., Sec. III.B, edge RSUs perform object detection and tracking and communicate these detection results to the cloud to build a traffic digital twin (DT)),
the controller is configured to generate predicted moving body information using the received synchronized observational dataset (e.g., Sec. II.B.(1), journey time for a vehicle [moving body] driving between nodes is predicted based on measured traffic information [i.e., the observational datasets received from the edge RSUs/data generation device]), and
the controller and the providing devices are configured to communicate with each other (e.g., Fig. 1, communication from cloud to vehicle by way of cell tower), thereby providing a traffic service that assists a user of each of the providing devices based on the predicted moving body information (e.g., Sec. II.B, communication is used to provide a traffic service, specifically navigation that assists a user of a vehicle navigating based on the predicted journey times).
As noted above, Zhang suggests using its synchronized observational dataset generation for traffic simulation. Wang teaches details of such as system that uses observational datasets to generate a traffic digital twin simulation, which can then be used to provide an improved navigation system that helps vehicles avoid accidents other dynamic traffic events, thereby improving efficiency and safety (e.g., Sec. VI).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the data generation device of Zhang into the traffic service providing system of Wang in order to improve the device with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a device whose synchronized observational datasets could be used to provide improved navigation services for vehicles. This technique for improving the device of Zhang was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Zhang and Wang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhang and Wang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
‘Tseng’ (US 2024/0137662 A1)
Another example of synchronizing videos based on vehicle detections
‘Yokota’ (US 2022/0254165 A1)
Synchronizes sensor data by aligning time series – e.g., Fig. 4
‘Lu’ (EP 4207133 A1)
Synchronizes vehicle observation data – e.g., Figs. 5-6
‘Alon’ (US 2018/0137754 A1)
Calculates distances between reference points of two vehicles – e.g., [0042], Fig. 4
Uses a hardware synchronization circuit – e.g., [0035]
‘Du’ (“A Novel Spatio-Temporal Synchronization Method of Roadside Asynchronous MMW Radar-Camera for Sensor Fusion,” 2021)
Tracks vehicle trajectories to synchronize data from camera and radar sensors – e.g., Fig. 2
Filters detection results for accuracy – Sec. IV.A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY E SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-9915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/GEOFFREY E SUMMERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights