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 .
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.
Remarks
This communication is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/01/2026. Claims 1-20 were pending. Claims 1, 8 and 13 have been amended. Claims 10, 15 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are added. Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16-23 are currently pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NIE (US 20210084235 A1, hereinafter “NIE”) in view of LI et al. (US 20200064483 A1, hereinafter “LI”).
Regarding claim 1. (Currently Amended) NIE discloses a vehicle (Figure 1; vehicle 105), comprising:
a first set of cameras, comprising a first subset of cameras oriented towards a front of the vehicle (0058, 0083 and 0076; Figures 3 and 5; “[0083] The sensor layout may include at least five forward-facing cameras, two backward-facing cameras, and one right-side camera facing to the right side, and one left-side camera facing to the left side. Three of the forward-facing cameras have a focal length of 6 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 60.1 degrees, and a perception range of 250 meters. One of the forward-facing cameras has a focal length of 12 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 32.8 degrees, a perception range of 500 meters, and may be positioned in the middle of the roof rack of the vehicle 105, semi-trailer, or truck. Another forward-facing camera has a focal length of 25 mm, an aperture of f/2.8, a horizontal field of vision of 15.4 degrees, a perception range of 1000 meters, and may be positioned in the middle of the roof rack of the vehicle 105, semi-trailer, or truck. The two backward facing cameras may have a focal length of 6 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 60.1 degrees ...”, and “[0076] The exemplary sensor layout may include at least five-forward facing cameras and two backward-facing cameras. Three of the forward-facing cameras may have a focal length of 4 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 77.2 degrees, and a perception range of 250 meters. These cameras may be attached on the left side of the exterior of the cabin, on the middle of the roof rack, and on the right side of the exterior of the cabin. …”);
a second set of cameras, wherein a focal length of the second set of cameras is less than a focal length of the first set of cameras, the second set of cameras comprises a second subset of cameras and a third subset of cameras, the second subset of cameras are oriented towards the front of the vehicle, and the third subset of cameras are oriented towards a side front or a side of the vehicle (0058, 0083 and 0076; Figures 3 and 5; “[0083] The sensor layout may include at least five forward-facing cameras, two backward-facing cameras, and one right-side camera facing to the right side, and one left-side camera facing to the left side. … The field of vision of one camera may overlap with other cameras. The field of vision of the cameras combined is near or at 360 degrees.”, and “[0076] The exemplary sensor layout may include at least five-forward facing cameras and two backward-facing cameras. Three of the forward-facing cameras may have a focal length of 4 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 77.2 degrees, and a perception range of 250 meters. These cameras may be attached on the left side of the exterior of the cabin, on the middle of the roof rack, and on the right side of the exterior of the cabin. ...”).
NIE failed to disclose wherein the first subset of cameras and the second subset of cameras comprises four cameras in a row having three different focal lengths.
LI, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows the vehicle comprises:
wherein the first subset of cameras and the second subset of cameras comprises four cameras in a row having three different focal lengths (0256-0257; Figure 15; wherein the camera pairs 135-3 and 135-4 lined up with another single camera 138-1 and wherein the either of the binocular cameras 135-3 or 135-4 are having the same focal length and all of the cameras are lined up on the top of the vehicle which might be rock, bracket or just simply on the top of the vehicle above the windshield.).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art to combine the multiple camera arrangement of LI in the vehicle environment sensing system of NIE in order to increase the efficiency, the accuracy and effectiveness of the functions of vehicle camera and yields predictable result.
Regarding claim 2. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a third set of cameras, wherein a focal length of the third set of cameras is less than the focal length of the second set of cameras, the third set of cameras comprises a fourth subset of cameras and a fifth subset of cameras, the fourth subset of cameras are oriented towards the front of the vehicle, and the fifth subset of cameras are oriented towards the side front or the side of the vehicle (0058, 0083 and 0076; Figures 3 and 5; “[0083] The sensor layout may include at least five forward-facing cameras, two backward-facing cameras, and one right-side camera facing to the right side, and one left-side camera facing to the left side. ...”).
Regarding claim 3. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 2, wherein:
the first set of cameras further comprises a sixth subset of cameras oriented towards a back of the vehicle;
the second set of cameras further comprises a seventh subset of cameras oriented towards the back of the vehicle; or
the third set of cameras further comprises an eighth subset of cameras oriented towards the back of the vehicle (0083; Figure 5; “[0083] The sensor layout may include at least five forward-facing cameras, two backward-facing cameras, and one right-side camera facing to the right side, and one left-side camera facing to the left side. ... All of the cameras may be attached to the exterior of a roof rack or brackets of a vehicle. ...”).
Regarding claim 4. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first group of LiDARs, comprising at least one LiDAR which is installed at a top of the vehicle and oriented towards the front of the vehicle (0061-0062 and 0078; Figures 2 and 4-6; “[0061] The vehicle 105 may include a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) unit. ... The LiDAR 220 may be coupled on top of or to the side of the engine compartment of the truck. ...”), and at least one LiDAR which is installed at a position, close to the top, of the side of the vehicle and oriented towards a back of the vehicle (0061-0062 and 0078; Figures 2 and 4-6; “[0061] The vehicle 105 may include a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) unit. The LiDAR 220 is configured to use an infrared laser beam to determine the distance between the sensor and a nearby object. ...”);
a second group of LiDARs, comprising at least two LiDARs which are respectively arranged on both sides of the front of the vehicle (0061 and 0078; Figures 2 and 4-6; “[0061] The vehicle 105 may include a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) unit. … The LiDAR 220 may be configured to detect objects, road conditions, and other information relevant to the trajectory of the vehicle. The LiDAR 220 may be coupled to the vehicle … the LiDAR 220 may be coupled to a rack along the top or bottom of the tractor. The LiDAR 220 may be coupled to the sides or the front of the truck. The LiDAR 220 may be coupled on top of or to the side of the engine compartment of the truck. ...”).
Regarding claim 5. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 4 as shown in the rejection above. NIE further discloses comprising perception distance to the group of LiDARs (0061, 0062 and 0078; Figures 2 and 4-6), but failed to disclose wherein a maximum perception distance of the first group of LiDARs is greater than a maximum perception distance of the second group of LiDARs.
However, this is obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to assign different maximum perception distance to different group of LiDARs that will make one group of LiDARs to have greater or less maximum perception distance that the other group of LiDARs in order to improve the efficiency of object detection and identification as needed under any situation (Official Notice).
Regarding claim 6. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first group of radars arranged in a middle of the front of the vehicle (0064-0071; Figure 2);
a second group of radars, comprising at least two radars installed on both sides of the front of the vehicle, at least two radars installed on both sides of a back of the vehicle, and at least one radar installed in a middle of the back of the vehicle, wherein an operating frequency of the second group of radars is lower than an operating frequency of the first group of radars (0064-0071; Figure 2; “[0071] The RADAR may be a short/medium-range RADAR. ... Short/medium-range RADAR may be coupled to the vehicle 105, the tractor, or the semi-trailer. The short/medium range RADAR may be configured to measure velocity and distance of an object near the vehicle. The short/medium-range RADAR may be configured to detect an object near the tractor. ... The short/medium-range RADAR may operate at a frequency between 2 and 36 GHz. In at least one implementation, the short/medium-range RADAR operates at 24 GHz which can measure speed and detect vehicles and obstacles 75 meters away. ...”).
Regarding claim 7. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 6, further comprising:
a third group of radars, comprising at least one radar installed in the middle of the front of the vehicle and at least two radars installed on both sides of the back of the vehicle, wherein an operating frequency of the third group of radars is lower than the operating frequency of the second group of radars (0064-0071; Figure 2; “[0071] The RADAR may be a short/medium-range RADAR. ... The short/medium-range RADAR may be configured to detect an object near the tractor. A plurality of short/medium range RADAR may be configured to measure velocity and distance of an object near the tractor. The short/medium-range RADAR may operate at a frequency between 2 and 36 GHz. In at least one implementation, the short/medium-range RADAR operates at 24 GHz which can measure speed and detect vehicles and obstacles 75 meters away. The plurality of short-range RADARs is configured to have a range of vision at or near 360 degrees around the vehicle 105, the tractor, and/or the semi-trailer. ...”).
Regarding claim 8. (Currently Amended) NIE discloses a vehicle (Figure 1; vehicle 105), comprising:
a first group of sensors, configured to perceive objects within a range less than a first distance and greater than a second distance from the vehicle (0053 and 0083; Figures 2 and 5; “[0083] The sensor layout may include at least five forward-facing cameras, two backward-facing cameras, and one right-side camera facing to the right side, and one left-side camera facing to the left side. Three of the forward-facing cameras have a focal length of 6 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 60.1 degrees, and a perception range of 250 meters. ...”);
a second group of sensors, configured to perceive objects within a range less than a third distance and greater than a fourth distance from the vehicle (0053 and 0083; Figures 2 and 5; “[0083] The sensor layout may include at least five forward-facing cameras, two backward-facing cameras, and one right-side camera facing to the right side, and one left-side camera facing to the left side. Three of the forward-facing cameras have a focal length of 6 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 60.1 degrees, and a perception range of 250 meters. One of the forward-facing cameras has a focal length of 12 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 32.8 degrees, a perception range of 500 meters, and may be positioned in the middle of the roof rack of the vehicle 105, semi-trailer, or truck. Another forward-facing camera has a focal length of 25 mm, an aperture of f/2.8, a horizontal field of vision of 15.4 degrees, a perception range of 1000 meters, and may be positioned in the middle of the roof rack of the vehicle 105, semi-trailer, or truck. ...”); and
a third group of sensors, configured to perceive objects within a range less than a fifth distance from the vehicle (0053 and 0083; Figures 2 and 5; “[0083] The sensor layout may include at least five forward-facing cameras, two backward-facing cameras, and one right-side camera facing to the right side, and one left-side camera facing to the left side. Three of the forward-facing cameras have a focal length of 6 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 60.1 degrees, and a perception range of 250 meters. One of the forward-facing cameras has a focal length of 12 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 32.8 degrees, a perception range of 500 meters, and may be positioned in the middle of the roof rack of the vehicle 105, semi-trailer, or truck. Another forward-facing camera has a focal length of 25 mm, an aperture of f/2.8, a horizontal field of vision of 15.4 degrees, a perception range of 1000 meters, and may be positioned in the middle of the roof rack of the vehicle 105, semi-trailer, or truck. ...”);
wherein the first distance is greater than the third distance, the third distance is greater than or equal to the second distance, the second distance is greater than the fourth distance, and the fifth distance is greater than or equal to the fourth distance and less than the second distance (0053 and 0083; Figures 2 and 5; “[0083] The sensor layout may include at least five forward-facing cameras, two backward-facing cameras, and one right-side camera facing to the right side, and one left-side camera facing to the left side. Three of the forward-facing cameras have a focal length of 6 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 60.1 degrees, and a perception range of 250 meters. One of the forward-facing cameras has a focal length of 12 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 32.8 degrees, a perception range of 500 meters, and may be positioned in the middle of the roof rack of the vehicle 105, semi-trailer, or truck. ... The right-side facing camera and the left-side facing camera may have a focal length of 6 mm, an aperture of f/2.0, a horizontal field of vision of 60.1 degrees, and a perception range of 250 meters. All of the cameras may be attached to the exterior of a roof rack or brackets of a vehicle. ...”).
NIE failed to disclose wherein the first group of sensors and the second group of cameras comprises four cameras in a row having three different focal lengths.
LI, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows the vehicle comprises:
wherein the first group of sensors and the second group of sensors comprises four cameras in a row having three different focal lengths (0256-0257; Figure 15; wherein the camera pairs 135-3 and 135-4 lined up with another single camera 138-1 and wherein the either of the binocular cameras 135-3 or 135-4 are having the same focal length and all of the cameras are lined up on the top of the vehicle which might be rock, bracket or just simply on the top of the vehicle above the windshield.).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art to combine the multiple camera arrangement of LI in the vehicle environment sensing system of NIE in order to increase the efficiency, the accuracy and effectiveness of the functions of vehicle camera and yields predictable result.
Regarding claim 9. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 8, wherein a horizontal field of view of the first group of sensors is smaller than or equal to a horizontal field of view of the second group of sensors, and the horizontal field of view of the second group of sensors is smaller than or equal to a horizontal field of view of the third group of sensors (0053 and 0083; Figures 2 and 5; “[0053] ... In some implementations, a focal length of 6 mm may result in a horizontal field of view of 60 degrees. In other implementations, a camera 210 having a focal length of 25 mm may result in a horizontal field of view of 15.4 degrees. In still other implementations, a camera 210 having a focal length of 12 mm may result in a horizontal field of view of 32.8 degrees. A lower focal length may result in a larger perception range. ...”).
Regarding claim 11. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the second group of sensors comprises:
a plurality of cameras, which are installed on a top of the vehicle and oriented in different directions (0057, 0061-0062 and 0078; Figure 3);
a plurality of LiDARs, wherein at least one of the plurality of LiDARs is installed at a position of the vehicle lower than the plurality of cameras and closer to a front of the vehicle (0057, 0061-0062 and 0078; Figure 3; “[0057] … the vehicle 105 includes at least one backward-facing camera coupled the vehicle 105 and facing towards the back of the vehicle 105. …”); or
a plurality of radars, which are installed at positions of the vehicle lower than the plurality of cameras, wherein at least one of the plurality of radars is installed at a position of the vehicle lower than at least a subset of the plurality of LiDAR.
Regarding claim 12. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the third group of sensors comprises:
a plurality of cameras, wherein at least one of the plurality of cameras is installed on a front of the vehicle, at least one of the plurality of cameras is installed at a back of the vehicle, and at least one of the plurality of cameras is installed at a top or a side of the vehicle (0057, 0061-0062 and 0078; Figure 3; “[0057] … the vehicle 105 includes at least one backward-facing camera coupled the vehicle 105 and facing towards the back of the vehicle 105. The at least one backward-facing cameras may be positioned towards the back of the vehicle 105, semi-trailer, or tractor. The at least one backward-facing cameras may be attached to a roof rack along the top side of the semi-trailer or tractor. …”);
a plurality of LiDARs, wherein at least one of the plurality of LiDARs is installed on the front of the vehicle, and at least one of the plurality of LiDARs is installed at the back of the vehicle (0057, 0061-0062 and 0078; Figure 3); or
a plurality of radars, wherein at least one of the plurality of radars is installed on the front of the vehicle, and at least one of the plurality of radars is installed at the back of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13. (Currently Amended) Claim 13 recites similar features as the limitation of claim 1. Claim 1 further recites a bracket, extending laterally from a side of the vehicle to another side of the vehicle. However, the brackets for the cameras are an inherent feature of camera installed on top or side of (outside of) the vehicle. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasoning of obviousness as used to reject claim 1.
Regarding claim 14. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 13, but fails to show wherein the first pair of cameras are positioned between the second pair of cameras and the one or more cameras are positioned between the first pair of cameras.
However, NIE shows that the different arrangement of cameras and LiDARs placed around (or on the top of) the vehicle.
It would have also been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art to arrange the cameras and LiDAR placed on the top of the vehicle to be arranged in any order to have wherein each of the second subset of cameras and a LiDAR of the first group of LiDARs is sandwiched between two cameras of the third subset of cameras and between the two cameras of the first subset of cameras (Official Notice).
Regarding claim 16. (Original) Claim 16 recites similar features as the limitation of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasoning of obviousness as used to reject claim 2.
Regarding claim 18. (Original) NIE discloses the vehicle according to claim 13, wherein the one or more cameras comprises at least two cameras with different focal lengths (0053 and 0083; Figures 2 and 5; “[0053] A camera 210 may have a different focal length for detecting objects at different distances. The different focal lengths provide data at different fields of vision. A lower focal length may result in a greater field of vision. …, a focal length of 6 mm may result in a horizontal field of view of 60 degrees. ...”).
Regarding claim 19. (Original) Claim 19 have similar limitations as to those limitations treated in the rejections above, and are met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claims 1 and 13 above. The motivation used on the rejection of claims 1 and 13 still applies to the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20. (Original) Claim 20 recites similar features as the limitation of claim 5. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasoning of obviousness as used to reject claim 5. The motivation used on the rejection of claim 5 still applies to the rejection of claim 20.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11-14, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,384 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because pending claim in the instant application is broader than the claims in the patented application.
19180922 – Instant Application
US 12298384 B2
1. (Currently Amended) A vehicle comprising:
a first set of cameras, comprising a first subset of cameras oriented towards a front of the vehicle;
a second set of cameras, wherein a focal length of the second set of cameras is less than a focal length of the first set of cameras, the second set of cameras comprises a second subset of cameras and a third subset of cameras, the second subset of cameras are oriented towards the front of the vehicle, and the third subset of cameras are oriented towards a side front or a side of the vehicle;
wherein the first subset of cameras and the second subset of cameras comprises four cameras in a row having three different focal lengths.
1. A vehicle, comprising:
a first set of cameras, comprising a first subset of cameras facing to a front of the vehicle;
a second set of cameras, wherein a focal length of the second set of cameras is less than a focal length of the first set of cameras, the second set of cameras comprises a second subset of cameras and a third subset of cameras, the second subset of cameras face to the front of the vehicle, and the third subset of cameras face to a side front or a side of the vehicle;
a third set of cameras, wherein a focal length of the third set of cameras is less than the focal length of the second set of cameras, the third set of cameras comprises a fourth subset of cameras and a fifth subset of camera, the fourth subset of cameras face to the front of the vehicle, and the fifth subset of camera face to the side front or the side of the vehicle and has a focal length less than a focal length of the third subset of cameras; and
a first group of LiDARs, comprising at least one LiDAR which is installed at a top of the vehicle and faces to the front of the vehicle,
wherein the first subset of cameras and the second subset of cameras comprises four cameras in a row having three different focal lengths, wherein the first subset of cameras comprises two cameras having a same focal length and lined up with each of the LiDARs, the second subset of cameras and the third subset of cameras on a bracket, and a distance between the two cameras having the same focal length is no less than 1.5 m, and
wherein each of the second subset of cameras and a LiDAR of the first group of LiDARs is sandwiched between two cameras of the third subset of cameras and between the two cameras of the first subset of cameras.
2. (Original) The vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a third set of cameras, wherein a focal length of the third set of cameras is less than the focal length of the second set of cameras, the third set of cameras comprises a fourth subset of cameras and a fifth subset of cameras, the fourth subset of cameras are oriented towards the front of the vehicle, and the fifth subset of cameras are oriented towards the side front or the side of the vehicle.
1. A vehicle, comprising:
…
a third set of cameras, wherein a focal length of the third set of cameras is less than the focal length of the second set of cameras, the third set of cameras comprises a fourth subset of cameras and a fifth subset of camera, the fourth subset of cameras face to the front of the vehicle, and the fifth subset of camera face to the side front or the side of the vehicle and has a focal length less than a focal length of the third subset of cameras; and …
3. The vehicle according to claim 2, wherein:
the first set of cameras further comprises a sixth subset of cameras oriented towards a back of the vehicle;
the second set of cameras further comprises a seventh subset of cameras oriented towards the back of the vehicle; or
the third set of cameras further comprises an eighth subset of cameras oriented towards the back of the vehicle.
2. The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein:
the first set of cameras further comprises a sixth subset of cameras facing to a back of the vehicle;
the second set of cameras further comprises a seventh subset of cameras facing to the back of the vehicle; or
the third set of cameras further comprises an eighth subset of cameras facing to the back of the vehicle.
4. The vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first group of LiDARs, comprising at least one LiDAR which is installed at a top of the vehicle and oriented towards the front of the vehicle, and
at least one LiDAR which is installed at a position, close to the top, of the side of the vehicle and oriented towards a back of the vehicle;
a second group of LiDARs, comprising at least two LiDARs which are respectively arranged on both sides of the front of the vehicle.
1. A vehicle, comprising:
…
a first group of LiDARs, comprising at least one LiDAR which is installed at a top of the vehicle and faces to the front of the vehicle,
8. The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first group of LiDARs, further comprises
at least one LiDAR which is installed at a position, close to the top, of the side of the vehicle and faces to a back of the vehicle.
9. The vehicle according to claim 8, further comprising:
a second group of LiDARs, comprising at least two LiDARs which are respectively arranged on both sides of the front of the vehicle.
5. The vehicle according to claim 4, wherein a maximum perception distance of the first group of LiDARs is greater than a maximum perception distance of the second group of LiDARs.
11. The vehicle according to claim 10, wherein a maximum perception distance of the first group of LiDARs is greater than a maximum perception distance of the second group of LiDARs, and the maximum perception distance of the second group of LiDARs is greater than a maximum perception distance of the third group of LiDARs.
6. The vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first group of radars arranged in a middle of the front of the vehicle;
a second group of radars, comprising at least two radars installed on both sides of the front of the vehicle, at least two radars installed on both sides of a back of the vehicle, and at least one radar installed in a middle of the back of the vehicle, wherein an operating frequency of the second group of radars is lower than an operating frequency of the first group of radars.
12. The vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first group of millimeter-wave radars arranged in a middle of the front of the vehicle.
13. The vehicle according to claim 12, further comprising:
a second group of millimeter-wave radars, comprising at least two millimeter-wave radars installed on both sides of the front of the vehicle, at least two millimeter-wave radars installed on both sides of a back of the vehicle, and at least one millimeter-wave radar installed in a middle of the back of the vehicle, wherein an operating frequency of the second group of millimeter-wave radars is lower than an operating frequency of the first group of millimeter-wave radars.
7. The vehicle according to claim 6, further comprising:
a third group of radars, comprising at least one radar installed in the middle of the front of the vehicle and at least two radars installed on both sides of the back of the vehicle, wherein an operating frequency of the third group of radars is lower than the operating frequency of the second group of radars.
14. The vehicle according to claim 13, further comprising:
a third group of millimeter-wave radars, comprising at least one millimeter-wave radar installed in the middle of the front of the vehicle and at least two millimeter-wave radars installed on both sides of the back of the vehicle, wherein an operating frequency of the third group of millimeter-wave radars is lower than the operating frequency of the second group of millimeter-wave radars.
8. A vehicle, comprising:
a first group of sensors, configured to perceive objects within a range less than a first distance and greater than a second distance from the vehicle;
a second group of sensors, configured to perceive objects within a range less than a third distance and greater than a fourth distance from the vehicle; and
a third group of sensors, configured to perceive objects within a range less than a fifth distance from the vehicle;
wherein the first distance is greater than the third distance, the third distance is greater than or equal to the second distance, the second distance is greater than the fourth distance, and the fifth distance is greater than or equal to the fourth distance and less than the second distance.
17. A vehicle, comprising:
a first group of sensors, configured to perceive objects within a range less than a first distance and greater than a second distance from the vehicle;
a second group of sensors, configured to perceive objects within a range less than a third distance and greater than a fourth distance from the vehicle; and
a third group of sensors, configured to perceive objects within a range less than a fifth distance from the vehicle;
wherein the first distance is greater than the third distance, the third distance is greater than or equal to the second distance, the second distance is greater than the fourth distance, and the fifth distance is greater than or equal to the fourth distance and less than the second distance, and …
9. The vehicle according to claim 8, wherein a horizontal field of view of the first group of sensors is smaller than or equal to a horizontal field of view of the second group of sensors, and the horizontal field of view of the second group of sensors is smaller than or equal to a horizontal field of view of the third group of sensors.
17. A vehicle, comprising: …
wherein a horizontal field of view of the first group of sensors is smaller than or equal to a horizontal field of view of the second group of sensors, and the horizontal field of view of the second group of sensors is smaller than or equal to a horizontal field of view of the third group of sensors, …
11. The vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the second group of sensors comprises:
a plurality of cameras, which are installed on a top of the vehicle and oriented in different directions;
a plurality of LiDARs, wherein at least one of the plurality of LiDARs is installed at a position of the vehicle lower than the plurality of cameras and closer to a front of the vehicle; or
a plurality of radars, which are installed at positions of the vehicle lower than the plurality of cameras, wherein at least one of the plurality of radars is installed at a position of the vehicle lower than at least a subset of the plurality of LiDAR.
18. The vehicle according to claim 17, wherein the plurality of cameras of the second group of sensors are installed on a top of the vehicle and face different directions;
wherein the second group of sensors further comprises:
a plurality of LiDARs, wherein at least one of the plurality of LiDARs is installed at a position of the vehicle lower than the plurality of cameras and closer to a front of the vehicle; or
a plurality of millimeter-wave radars, which are installed at positions of the vehicle lower than the plurality of cameras, wherein at least one of the plurality of millimeter-wave radars is installed at a position of the vehicle lower than at least a subset of the plurality of LiDARs.
12. The vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the third group of sensors comprises:
a plurality of cameras, wherein at least one of the plurality of cameras is installed on a front of the vehicle, at least one of the plurality of cameras is installed at a back of the vehicle, and at least one of the plurality of cameras is installed at a top or a side of the vehicle;
a plurality of LiDARs, wherein at least one of the plurality of LiDARs is installed on the front of the vehicle, and at least one of the plurality of LiDARs is installed at the back of the vehicle; or
a plurality of radars, wherein at least one of the plurality of radars is installed on the front of the vehicle, and at least one of the plurality of radars is installed at the back of the vehicle.
19. The vehicle according to claim 17, wherein the third group of sensors comprises:
a plurality of cameras, wherein at least one of the plurality of cameras is installed on a front of the vehicle, at least one of the plurality of cameras is installed at a back of the vehicle, and at least one of the plurality of cameras is installed at a top or a side of the vehicle;
a plurality of LiDARs, wherein at least one of the plurality of LiDARs is installed on the front of the vehicle, and at least one of the plurality of LiDARs is installed at the back of the vehicle; or
a plurality of millimeter-wave radars, wherein at least one of the plurality of millimeter-wave radars is installed on the front of the vehicle, and at least one of the plurality of millimeter-wave radars is installed at the back of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot based on new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights