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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “209” has been used to designate both CPU 209 and wheel speed sensor 209 in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “206” has been used to designate both CAN interference 206 in Figure 2 and storage device 206 in Figure 3 (which should be 211 in light of ¶ 0016 of the specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is above the 150-word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 line 21 to improve clarity and maintained continuity. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
In claim(s) 1, the “point group map generation section” in the limitation “a point group map generation section that associates the three-dimensional point group acquired by the external detection sensor with a point group map” invokes 112(f) as “section” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the association of point group data with a map.
In claim(s) 1, the “sensor position change computation section” in the limitation “a sensor position change computation section configured to compute a change in position” invokes 112(f) as “section” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the determination of a position change.
In claim(s) 1, the “non-detection area sensing section” in the limitation “a non-detection area sensing section that extracts… an area” invokes 112(f) as “section” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables extraction of a non-detection area.
In claim(s) 1, the “non-detection area factor judgement section” in the limitation “a non-detection area factor judgement section that judges a factor of the non-detection area” invokes 112(f) as “section” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the judgment of a factor.
In claim(s) 1, the “action decision section” in the limitation “an action decision section that decides an action of the vehicle” invokes 112(f) as “section” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables deciding an action.
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.
Regarding each of the sections, a review of the specification (¶ 0072) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"In addition, a part or all of the above-described configurations, functions, processing sections, processing means, and the like may be realized by hardware by, for example, designing with an integrated circuit. In addition, the above-described configurations, functions, and the like may be realized by software by a processor interpreting and executing a program for realizing each of the functions. Information such as programs, tables, and files for realizing each function can be placed in a memory, a recording device such as a hard disk or an SSD (Solid State Drive), or a recording medium such as an IC card, an SD card, or a DVD. In addition, control lines and information lines considered to be necessary for explanation are depicted, and not all the control lines and information lines in the product are necessarily depicted. In practice, almost all the configurations may be considered to be connected to each other." (Emphasis added.)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for utilizing the transitional phrase “has”/“having” which is not one of the three well known transitional phrases discussed in MPEP § 2111.03. As the applicant fails to explicitly define what “has”/“having” means within the specification and the phrase's definition appears to be ambiguous within the provided confines of the disclosure, it is unclear to the examiner if the intent is that “has”/“having” indicates that there may only be what is recited, that there may be what is recited and potentially more, or that there may be essentially only what is recited and anything else which does not affect the basic and novel characteristics of what is recited. For the purposes of examining, “has”/“having” will be interpreted as having essentially the same meaning as “comprises”/“comprising.” The examiner recommends that the applicant either replace the phrase with one of the three well known phrases or explicitly define the intended meaning within the specification provided no new matter is added.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
the controller having a point group map generation section that associates the three-dimensional point group acquired by the external detection sensor with a point group map,
a sensor position change computation section configured to compute a change in position of the external detection sensor on a basis of a measurement result of the position measurement sensor, and
a non-detection area sensing section that extracts, in a case where the external detection sensor is not able to acquire the three-dimensional point group to be acquired, an area of the point group map as a non-detection area, and
wherein the controller has a non-detection area factor judgement section that judges a factor of the non-detection area on a basis of whether or not a position of the non-detection area in the point group map changes according to a change in position of the vehicle, and
an action decision section that decides an action of the vehicle according to the judgement result of the non-detection area factor judgement section.
The limitations recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a controller and sensors, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can mentally compare two point clouds to determine a region in which the two point clouds are and are not the same (a and c). The person can perform basic subtraction mentally or with pen and paper to determine a change in position between two timestamps (b). The person can then determine if the unmatched region between the two point-clouds changes position as the vehicle changes position between the two timestamps to determine if the unmatched region is caused by debris or another occlusion (d). Based on the determination of what caused the unmatched region, the person can then determine an action that the vehicle should perform (e). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sensors and controller is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The limitations of receiving sensor signals are insignificant extra pre-solution activities of mere data gathering. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the controller and sensors are generically claimed as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation of receiving signals is a WURC activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the reception of data over a network is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim(s) is/are directed towards additional aspects of the abstract idea.
To overcome this rejection, examiner recommends including details about implementing the action following deciding that an action should be performed provided that the action is recited in such a way that it cannot be interpreted as a WURC function (e.g. mere data transmission) or seen as an additional aspect of the abstract idea (e.g. rerouting without details about actively controlling the vehicle to follow the new route) provided no new matter is added. Alternatively, to overcome this rejection, applicant may include details regarding controlling the vehicle to change positions as implied to occur in the claim 1 provided no new matter is added.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al. US 20220171063 A1 (hereinafter Urano) in view of Dimsdale et al. US 20100188504 A1 (hereinafter Dimsdale) and Namba et al. US 20240302510 A1 (hereinafter Namba).
Regarding claim 1,
Urano teaches
A mining vehicle autonomous travel system comprising:
an external detection sensor that acquires a three-dimensional point group of surrounding environments of a vehicle (¶ 0006 “an external sensor configured to acquire information on an external situation of the vehicle”; see also ¶ 0008 regarding point groups);
a position measurement sensor that is attached to the vehicle (¶ “The in-vehicle sensor includes a GPS receiver 6, an internal sensor 7, and an external sensor 8”); and
a controller (¶ 0054 “The vehicle control device 10 is an electronic control unit (ECU)”) to which signals of the external detection sensor and the position measurement sensor are input (Figure 7 shows signals from the in-vehicle sensors 6-8 are transmitted to the ECU 10),
the controller having
a point group map generation section realized by an integrated circuit or software implement by a processor (¶ 0054 discloses that the controller has a processor that executes a program stored in memory to implement the method) that associates the three-dimensional point group acquired by the external detection sensor with a point group map (¶ 0006 discloses comparing an image detected by the external sensor to map information including a stationary object; see also ¶ 0008 where an image is a point group),
a sensor position change computation section realized by the integrated circuit or the software implement by the processor (¶ 0054) configured to compute a on a basis of a measurement result of the position measurement sensor (¶ 0057 discloses determine self-position, including determining a relative position between a feature and an external sensor), and
a non-detection area sensing section realized by the integrated circuit or the software implement by the processor (¶ 0054) that extracts, in a case where the external detection sensor is not able to acquire the three-dimensional point group to be acquired, an area of the point group map as a non-detection area (¶ 0006 discloses determining an undetected region), and
wherein the controller has
a non-detection area factor judgement section realized by the integrated circuit or the software implement by the processor (¶ 0054) that judges a factor of the non-detection area (¶ 0069 discloses determine if an undetected region is one that is occluded by a moving object or a region where no valid point group is obtained)
an action decision section realized by the integrated circuit or the software implement by the processor (¶ 0054) that decides an action of the vehicle according to the judgement result of the non-detection area factor judgement section (Figure 10 S202, for example, discloses prompting an object to move and Figure 11 S302 discloses prompting a vehicle observer to pay attention to vehicle vicinity in response to determining that an undetected region is not resultant of a detected moving object “shadow”).
Urano does not explicitly teach
compute a change in position of the external detection sensor on a basis of a measurement result of the position measurement sensor.
While this may be implicitly obtained from Urano since positional measurements are from a time series (see ¶ 0100 for example regarding a time series of relative position information) and thus any comparison between a measurement at one timestep with another measurement at a second timestep would result in obtaining this feature, Dimsdale is relied upon for a more explicit recitation.
Dimsdale teaches
compute a change in position of the external detection sensor on a basis of a measurement result of the position measurement sensor (claim 47, for example, discloses that a GPS provides measurements of positional changes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Urano to incorporate the teachings of Dimsdale such that the GPS of Urano can further measure positional changes of the sensor as taught by Dimsdale. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of location determination of a sensor.
Urano does not teach
judging a factor of the non-detection area on a basis of whether or not a position of the non-detection area in the point group map changes according to a change in position of the vehicle.
Namba teaches
judging a factor of the non-detection area on a basis of whether or not a position of the non-detection area in the point group map changes according to a change in position of the vehicle (¶ 0034 discloses that if an abnormal detection exists for T second or longer, a sensor is determined to be dirty; see also ¶ 0032-0033 for more information regarding abnormal detection; ¶ 0037 discloses that real objects should have their positions change as the vehicle travels and thus dirt cannot be determined unless an abnormal state exists for a predetermined period as the vehicle travels; examiner understands that this would function equivalently to the invention as claimed), and
deciding an action of the vehicle according to the judgement result of the non-detection area factor judgement section (¶ 0044-0045 discloses cleaning a dirty lens).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Urano to incorporate the teachings of Namba such that dirt causing non-detection in Urano can be detected and cleaned as taught by Namba. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to quickly identify dirt on a sensor as disclosed in Namba (¶ 0006) and ensure that accurate data is being captured by performing cleaning after dirt detection.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano as modified by Dimsdale and Namba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. US 20140307247 A1 (hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Urano reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Urano does not teach teaches that
the action decision section decides, in a case where it is judged by the non-detection area factor judgement section that the factor of the non-detection area is a puddle, whether to change a course so as to avoid the puddle, travel across the puddle, or stop the vehicle according to a magnitude relation between a width of the vehicle and a width of the puddle judged to be the factor of the non-detection area.
Zhu teaches
the action decision section decides, in a case where it is judged by the non-detection area factor judgement section that the factor of the non-detection area is a puddle (¶ 0005 discloses that a wet travel surface can be identified based on data that is unassociated with objects in the environment; see also ¶ 0087 where the wet surface is a puddle), to travel across the puddle (¶ 0022, for example, discloses that upon determination that a road is wet, produce autonomous operation over the wet surface at a slower speed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Urano to incorporate the teachings of Zhu such that the object association method of Urano can further result in identification of wet roads including puddles as taught by Zhu. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of the vehicle by ensuring driving actions are safe as suggested by Zhu (¶ 0022).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano as modified by Dimsdale and Namba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurata et al. US 20160282874 A1 (hereinafter Kurata).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Urano reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Urano further teaches that
the external detection sensor includes a laser ranging sensor (¶ 0008 “The external sensor may be a LiDAR”),
Urano does not teach that
the action decision section decides, in a case where it is judged by the non-detection area factor judgement section that the factor of the non-detection area is dirt on an irradiation surface of the laser ranging sensor, whether to transmit an alarm to a control center for managing the vehicle, change a course such that the non-detection area and a route range do not overlap each other in a detection range of the external detection sensor, or stop the vehicle.
Kurata teaches that
the action decision section decides, in a case where it is judged by the non-detection area factor judgement section that the factor of the non-detection area is dirt on an affectation surface of the laser ranging sensor, whether to transmit an alarm to a control center for managing the vehicle (Figure 7 S709 or S716 discloses notifying a center of sensor degradation, e.g. dirt detailed in at least ¶ 0056, and/or vehicle stopping) or stop the vehicle (¶ 0056 discloses that; if a sensor is degraded, e.g. by dirt on the lens, and stopping the vehicle won’t affect traffic; the vehicle is stopped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Urano to incorporate the teachings of Kurata such that upon detection of dirt on a sensor as taught by Namba above, the vehicle can be stopped if it does not affect traffic and a notification can be provided to a control center regarding the sensor degradation and/or vehicle stop condition as taught by Kurata. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce loss associated with stopping a faulty vehicle by ensuring a vehicle will not affect other vehicles before stopping as taught by Kurata (¶ 0054) and improve awareness and decision making of the command center by providing notifications of sensor failure occurrences.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano as modified by Dimsdale and Namba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bertucci et al. WO 2020023745 A1 (hereinafter Bertucci) in light of Yoo CN 103707887 A (hereinafter Yoo; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Urano reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Urano further teaches that
the external detection sensor includes a laser ranging sensor (¶ 0008 “The external sensor may be a LiDAR”)
.
Urano does not teach that
the point group map generation section is configured to compute a maximum detection distance according to a gradient of a road surface on a front side of the vehicle, and process only three-dimensional point group data measured in a target range equal to or less than the maximum detection distance.
Bertucci in light of Yoo teaches that
the point group map generation section is configured to compute a maximum detection distance (¶ 0118 discloses that a zone of interest is defined by a maximum distance from the vehicle) (¶ 0118 “filtering 710 the current point cloud data to consider only points in a zone of interest”).
While Bertucci does not explicitly teach that the maximum detection distance is computed according to a gradient of a road surface on a front side of the vehicle, it is well known that slopes in a traveling (e.g. forward) direction inherently limit traveling direction `visibility as detailed in Yoo for example (¶ 0006 “when there is a slope on the road surface in the direction of travel, the detection range of the detection sensor may be limited, and the detection function will also be reduced accordingly”; see also example Figures 2-3 showing how a detection range is reduced by a slope). Since slopes inherently reduce a detection range, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Urano to incorporate the teachings of Bertucci such that a processed point cloud can be limited according to a maximum distance around a vehicle as taught by Bertucci wherein the maximum distance is merely chosen to be equivalent to a maximum detectable range since increasing the maximum distance beyond a detectable region would result in increased processing time without increased knowledgeability. This modification would consequentially arrive at the claimed invention whenever a maximum detectable region is inherently limited due to road gradient. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to overall reduce processing time and computational power required to perform the claimed invention.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gassend et al. US 20200142041 A1 discloses comparing a first lidar scan with a second lidar scan to detect an occlusion.
Krishnaswamy et al. US 20080239279 A1 discloses detecting a position change based on sensed environmental features.
Mandai et al. US 20210122294 A1 discloses notifying an operator to stop a vehicle when a lidar is dirty.
McCool et al. US 20210354723 A1 discloses detecting a puddle and reacting based on detected puddle severity by rerouting or going through the puddle.
McMichael et al. US 20190385025 A1 discloses comparing sensor data at two different times to detect an obstruction on a sensor and responding accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Tuesday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
