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 .
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 13 June 2025. Applicant’s amendment on 13 June 2025 amended Claims 31 and 53. Claims 39, and 43-55 have been withdrawn and claims 39 and 52 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-30 were previously canceled. Currently Claims 31-38 and 40-42 are pending and have been examined. The Examiner notes that the withdrawn claims 45, 52, and 53 have been amended, but they will remain unexamined as they are still under the withdrawn status until such time as allowable subject matter has been determined. After allowable subject matter has been determined rejoinder will be discussed. The Examiner notes that the 101 has been withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that the amendment is viewed to have a beneficial real world application with demonstrates that ta judicial exception which is integrated into a practical application. According to the August 2025 memo, the USPTO evaluates whether claims “cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” The Applicants amendment utilizing the sensor data to provide avoidance of obstacles and prevent collision describes and provides the specific technical means to achieve the result through the use of cost maps. Specifically, it is viewed that the integration of the cost mapping software, sensor collection data, and ability to use the data to respond and avoid a collision in real time is a improvement to the technology creating a practical application. The claims provide a detailing of how it technically accomplishes the results in a way that represents a practical solution to the technical problem. The 101 rejection is therefore withdrawn.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 13 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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 may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYLOR (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0180196 A1) (hereafter Taylor) in view of Congbing et al. (CN 108344414 A) (hereafter Congbing) in further view of Lu et al. (2014, IEEE/RJS International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2014), pp 709-715) in further view of Atrash et al. (U.S. Patent 11,480,968 B1) (hereafter Atrash).
Referring to Claim 31, Taylor teaches a disseminating Intelligent Transport System Station (ITS-S), comprising:
memory circuitry to store program code of a Collective Perception Services (CPS) facility within a facilities layer and processor circuitry communicatively coupled with the memory circuitry, (see; par. [0015] of Taylor teaches a memory attached to computer and a processor to determine a feature map of a plurality of cells).
Taylor does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Congbing teaches the communication circuitry to disseminate the CPM to one or more other ITS-Ss (see; pg. 16 par. 8-10 of Congbing teaches the communication and distribution of an updated navigation map).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor fails to disclose the communication circuitry to disseminate the CPM to one or more other ITS-Ss.
Congbing discloses the communication circuitry to disseminate the CPM to one or more other ITS-Ss.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Taylor the claimed the communication circuitry to disseminate the CPM to one or more other ITS-Ss as taught by Congbing since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor and Congbing teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Taylor in view of Congbing does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Lu teaches the processor circuitry to execute the program code to operate the CPS facility, the CPS facility to generate a Collective Perception Message (CPM) to include a Layered Cost Map (LCM) container, and the LCM container comprising one or more layers of an LCM and cost values for respective cells located among the one or more layers of the LCM (see; Abstract and pg. 710, col. 1, (II) par. 2 of Lu teaches the use of costmaps regarding autonomous vehicles using cost maps for navigation (i.e. CPS), pg. 709, Figure 1 and pg. 712, Figure 2 provides an example of layered cost maps where each cell have an associated value on one or more of the different layers), and
wherein the cost values indicate a probability that a perceived object is located in an area corresponding to the respective cells (see; pg. 710, (II) par. 1 of Lu teaches cell value is the probability there is an obstacle), and
divide the respective cost maps into the respective cells (see; pg. 712, Figure 2 of Lu teaches an example of dividing different cost maps into cells).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Lu teaches a layered costmaps for context sensitive navigation and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor and Congbing which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor and Congbing discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor and Congbing fails to disclose the processor circuitry to execute the program code to operate the CPS facility, the CPS facility to generate a Collective Perception Message (CPM) to include a Layered Cost Map (LCM) container, and the LCM container comprising one or more layers of an LCM and cost values for respective cells located among the one or more layers of the LCM, and
Lu discloses the processor circuitry to execute the program code to operate the CPS facility, the CPS facility to generate a Collective Perception Message (CPM) to include a Layered Cost Map (LCM) container, and the LCM container comprising one or more layers of an LCM and cost values for respective cells located among the one or more layers of the LCM, and
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Taylor and Congbing the processor circuitry to execute the program code to operate the CPS facility, the CPS facility to generate a Collective Perception Message (CPM) to include a Layered Cost Map (LCM) container, and the LCM container comprising one or more layers of an LCM and cost values for respective cells located among the one or more layers of the LCM, andperceived object is located in an area corresponding to the respective cells and divide the respective cost maps into the respective cells as taught by Lu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor, Congbing, and Lu teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Atrash teaches generate respective cost maps for each layer of the LCM, wherein a shape of a cost map in each layer has dimensions corresponding to an area within a field of view (FoV) of the at least one sensor disposed in or on the vehicle in which the ITS-S is implemented, wherein an area outside the FoV of the at least one sensor is excluded from the respective cost maps (see; col. 5, line (64) – col. 6, line (17) of Atrash teaches the generating of cost maps, col. 19, lines (13-31) using sensors to measure a particular field of view, col. 13, line (64) – col. 14, line (21) where there is also some disregarding (i.e. excluded) of particular areas of the field of view), and
communication circuitry communicatively coupled with the processor circuitry, the communication circuitry to receive the sensor data in real-time and disseminate the CPM to one or more other ITS-Ss, wherein the CPM enables the one or more ITS-Ss to identify the perceived object in real-time based on the respective cost maps and cause a navigational response to avoid a collision with the perceived object during navigation in locations that correspond to the respective cells of the respective cost maps (see; col. 13, lines (29-42) of Atrash teaches the real time use of sensors, col. 19, lines (46-50) that is used for collision avoidance during navigation, col. 3, lines (20-28) where the data is part of cells utilizing cost value data, coal. 5, line (64) – col. 6, line (17), where the cells make up a cost map).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Lu teaches a layered cost maps for context sensitive navigation and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor and Congbing which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Atrash teaches a dynamic positioning of autonomous mobile devices using cost map data and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor, Congbing, and Lu which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor, Congbing, and Lu discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor, Congbing, and Lu fails to disclose generate respective cost maps for each layer of the LCM, wherein a shape of a cost map in each layer has dimensions corresponding to an area within a field of view (FoV) of the at least one sensor disposed in or on the vehicle in which the ITS-S is implemented, wherein an area outside the FoV of the at least one sensor is excluded from the respective cost maps and communication circuitry communicatively coupled with the processor circuitry, the communication circuitry to receive the sensor data in real-time and disseminate the CPM to one or more other ITS-Ss, wherein the CPM enables the one or more ITS-Ss to identify the perceived object in real-time based on the respective cost maps and cause a navigational response to avoid a collision with the perceived object during navigation in locations that correspond to the respective cells of the respective cost maps.
Atrash discloses generate respective cost maps for each layer of the LCM, wherein a shape of a cost map in each layer has dimensions corresponding to an area within a field of view (FoV) of the at least one sensor disposed in or on the vehicle in which the ITS-S is implemented, wherein an area outside the FoV of the at least one sensor is excluded from the respective cost maps and communication circuitry communicatively coupled with the processor circuitry, the communication circuitry to receive the sensor data in real-time and disseminate the CPM to one or more other ITS-Ss, wherein the CPM enables the one or more ITS-Ss to identify the perceived object in real-time based on the respective cost maps and cause a navigational response to avoid a collision with the perceived object during navigation in locations that correspond to the respective cells of the respective cost maps.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Taylor, Congbing, and Lu generate respective cost maps for each layer of the LCM, wherein a shape of a cost map in each layer has dimensions corresponding to an area within a field of view (FoV) of the at least one sensor disposed in or on the vehicle in which the ITS-S is implemented, wherein an area outside the FoV of the at least one sensor is excluded from the respective cost maps and communication circuitry communicatively coupled with the processor circuitry, the communication circuitry to receive the sensor data in real-time and disseminate the CPM to one or more other ITS-Ss, wherein the CPM enables the one or more ITS-Ss to identify the perceived object in real-time based on the respective cost maps and cause a navigational response to avoid a collision with the perceived object during navigation in locations that correspond to the respective cells of the respective cost maps as taught by Atrash since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor, Congbing, Lu, and Atrash teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 32, see discussion of claim 31 above, while Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu in further view of Atrash teaches the system above, Taylor in further view of Congbing does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Lu teaches insert the one or more layers of the LCM into the LCM container, wherein the one or more layers include a static cost map layer, a perceived obstacle cost map layer, an inflation cost map layer, and a collective perception layer (see; pg. 709, Figure 1, and pg. 712, Figure 2 of Lu teaches an example of cost maps where depending on the need can be broken up into layers including static cost, perceived cost map, inflation cost, and collective perception (i.e. Master layer)).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Lu teaches a layered costmaps for context sensitive navigation and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor and Congbing which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor and Congbing discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor and Congbing fails to disclose the processor circuitry to execute the program code to operate the CPS facility, the CPS facility to generate a Collective Perception Message (CPM) to include a Layered Cost Map (LCM) container, and the LCM container comprising one or more layers of an LCM and cost values for respective cells located among the one or more layers of the LCM, wherein the cost values indicate a probability that a perceived object is located in an area corresponding to the respective cells, wherein the processor circuitry is further to: identify the perceived object from sensor data, the sensor data obtained from at least one sensor disposed in or on a vehicle in which the ITS-S is implemented, generate respective cost maps for each layer of the LCM, the respective cost maps including a shape having dimensions corresponding to a field of view (FoV) of the at least one sensor, and divide the respective cost maps into the respective cells.
Lu discloses the processor circuitry to execute the program code to operate the CPS facility, the CPS facility to generate a Collective Perception Message (CPM) to include a Layered Cost Map (LCM) container, and the LCM container comprising one or more layers of an LCM and cost values for respective cells located among the one or more layers of the LCM, wherein the cost values indicate a probability that a perceived object is located in an area corresponding to the respective cells, wherein the processor circuitry is further to: identify the perceived object from sensor data, the sensor data obtained from at least one sensor disposed in or on a vehicle in which the ITS-S is implemented, generate respective cost maps for each layer of the LCM, the respective cost maps including a shape having dimensions corresponding to a field of view (FoV) of the at least one sensor, and divide the respective cost maps into the respective cells.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Taylor and Congbing the processor circuitry to execute the program code to operate the CPS facility, the CPS facility to generate a Collective Perception Message (CPM) to include a Layered Cost Map (LCM) container, and the LCM container comprising one or more layers of an LCM and cost values for respective cells located among the one or more layers of the LCM, wherein the cost values indicate a probability that a perceived object is located in an area corresponding to the respective cells, wherein the processor circuitry is further to: identify the perceived object from sensor data, the sensor data obtained from at least one sensor disposed in or on a vehicle in which the ITS-S is implemented, generate respective cost maps for each layer of the LCM, the respective cost maps including a shape having dimensions corresponding to a field of view (FoV) of the at least one sensor, and divide the respective cost maps into the respective cells as taught by Lu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor, Congbing, and Lu teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 33, see discussion of claim 32 above, while Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu in further view of Atrash teaches the system above, Taylor does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Congbing teaches accumulate the tracked data from the static cost map layer, the perceived obstacle cost map layer, the inflation cost map layer, and the collective perception layer into an aggregated cost map layer, the aggregated cost map layer being a layer of the one or more layers (see; pg. 9, par. 5, of Congbing teaches the completion of multiple obstacle layers, pg. 12, par. 5 where there is an inflation layer).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Lu teaches a layered costmaps for context sensitive navigation and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor and Congbing which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor and Congbing discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor and Congbing fails to disclose accumulate the tracked data from the static cost map layer, the perceived obstacle cost map layer, the inflation cost map layer, and the collective perception layer into an aggregated cost map layer, the aggregated cost map layer being a layer of the one or more layers.
Congbing discloses accumulate the tracked data from the static cost map layer, the perceived obstacle cost map layer, the inflation cost map layer, and the collective perception layer into an aggregated cost map layer, the aggregated cost map layer being a layer of the one or more layers.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Taylor accumulate the tracked data from the static cost map layer, the perceived obstacle cost map layer, the inflation cost map layer, and the collective perception layer into an aggregated cost map layer, the aggregated cost map layer being a layer of the one or more layers as taught by Congbing since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor and Congbing teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Taylor in view of Congbing does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Lu teaches the processor circuitry is further to: track, at each layer of the LCM, data related to a respective functionality or a respective sensor type of the at least one sensor (see; pg. 711, col. 1, (IV) (A) par. 1-3, of Lu teaches an example of monitoring specific functionality of each cost layer based on recorded sensor data as seen in Figure 2).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Lu teaches a layered costmaps for context sensitive navigation and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor and Congbing which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor and Congbing discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor and Congbing fails to disclose the processor circuitry is further to: track, at each layer of the LCM, data related to a respective functionality or a respective sensor type of the at least one sensor.
Lu discloses the processor circuitry is further to: track, at each layer of the LCM, data related to a respective functionality or a respective sensor type of the at least one sensor.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Taylor and Congbing the processor circuitry is further to: track, at each layer of the LCM, data related to a respective functionality or a respective sensor type of the at least one sensor as taught by Lu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor, Congbing, and Lu teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 34, see discussion of claim 33 above, while Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu in further view of Atrash teaches the system above, Taylor does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Congbing teaches to track data, the processor circuitry is to: generate or update the static cost map layer with cost values for one or more perceived objects representing non-moving structures (see; pg. 13, par. 4 of Congbing teaches track data including the updating of static cost maps based on barriers), and
generate or update the perceived obstacle cost map layer with cost values for one or more perceived objects representing moving objects (see; pg. 11, par. 7 of Congbing teaches generating an obstacle map layer associated with cost for moving objects), and
generate or update the inflation cost map layer with cost values for buffer zones around one or more perceived objects (see; pg. 12, par. 5 of Congbing teaches generating an inflation cost layer associated with cost and includes barrier zones), and
generate or update the collective perception layer with cost values received from the one or more other ITS-Ss (see; pg. 9, par. 3 of Congbing teaches generating a multiple layer cost map).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor fails to disclose to track data, the processor circuitry is to: generate or update the static cost map layer with cost values for one or more perceived objects representing non-moving structures, generate or update the perceived obstacle cost map layer with cost values for one or more perceived objects representing moving objects, generate or update the inflation cost map layer with cost values for buffer zones around one or more perceived objects, and generate or update the collective perception layer with cost values received from the one or more other ITS-Ss.
Congbing discloses to track data, the processor circuitry is to: generate or update the static cost map layer with cost values for one or more perceived objects representing non-moving structures, generate or update the perceived obstacle cost map layer with cost values for one or more perceived objects representing moving objects, generate or update the inflation cost map layer with cost values for buffer zones around one or more perceived objects, and generate or update the collective perception layer with cost values received from the one or more other ITS-Ss.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Taylor to track data, the processor circuitry is to: generate or update the static cost map layer with cost values for one or more perceived objects representing non-moving structures, generate or update the perceived obstacle cost map layer with cost values for one or more perceived objects representing moving objects, generate or update the inflation cost map layer with cost values for buffer zones around one or more perceived objects, and generate or update the collective perception layer with cost values received from the one or more other ITS-Ss as taught by Congbing since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor and Congbing teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Claims 35, 36, 37, 38, and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYLOR (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0180196 A1) (hereafter Taylor) in view of Congbing et al. (CN 108344414 A) (hereafter Congbing) in further view of Lu et al. (2014, IEEE/RJS International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2014), pp 709-715) in further view of Atrash et al. (U.S. Patent 11,480,968 B1) (hereafter Atrash) in further view of Zhang et al. (CN 102169637 A).
Referring to Claim 35, see discussion of claim 34 above, while Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu in further view of Atrash the system above, Taylor does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Congbing teaches insert the discrepancy handling cost map layer into the LCM container when the identified discrepancies of a predetermined number of cost map values is at or above a threshold discrepancy value (see; pg. 14, par. 7 of Congbing teaches determining a difference in multiple maps).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor fails to disclose insert the discrepancy handling cost map layer into the LCM container when the identified discrepancies of a predetermined number of cost map values is at or above a threshold discrepancy value.
Congbing discloses insert the discrepancy handling cost map layer into the LCM container when the identified discrepancies of a predetermined number of cost map values is at or above a threshold discrepancy value.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Taylor to insert the discrepancy handling cost map layer into the LCM container when the identified discrepancies of a predetermined number of cost map values is at or above a threshold discrepancy value as taught by Congbing since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor and Congbing teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu in further view of Atrash does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Zhang teaches identify discrepancies between cost values in cost maps of one or more layers of the LCM and corresponding cost values received from the one or more other ITS-Ss (see; pg. 16, par. 15 – pg. 17 of Zhang teaches an example of determining based on dynamic costs (i.e. discrepancies in cost values) associated with the cost map received from collected node data).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Lu teaches a layered costmaps for context sensitive navigation and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor and Congbing which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Atrash teaches a dynamic positioning of autonomous mobile devices using cost map data and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor, Congbing, and Lu which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Zhang teaches a dynamic route guidance method oriented to urban traffic and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor, Congbing, Lu, and Atrash which object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor, Congbing, Lu, and Atrash discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor, Congbing, Lu, and Atrash fails to disclose identify discrepancies between cost values in cost maps of one or more layers of the LCM and corresponding cost values received from the one or more other ITS-Ss.
Zhang discloses identify discrepancies between cost values in cost maps of one or more layers of the LCM and corresponding cost values received from the one or more other ITS-Ss.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Taylor, Congbing, Lu, and Atrash disclose identify discrepancies between cost values in cost maps of one or more layers of the LCM and corresponding cost values received from the one or more other ITS-Ss as taught by Zhang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor, Congbing, Lu, Atrash, and Zhang teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 36, see discussion of claim 35 above, while Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu in further view of Atrash in further view of Zhang teaches the system above, Taylor further discloses a system having the limitations of,
resolution of the discrepancies is based on majority voting among the ITS-S and the one or more other ITS-Ss that are proximate (see; par. [0153]-[0154] of Taylor teaches resolution provide differences between accumulated maps and parent cost maps (i.e. discrepancies)).
Referring to Claim 37, see discussion of claim 36 above, while Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu in further view of Atrash in further view of Zhang teaches the system above, Taylor further discloses a system having the limitations of,
the one or more layers further comprises a collaboration request LCM layer, and the processor circuitry is further to (see; par. [0141] of Taylor teaches an accumulated cost map (i.e. collaboration map layer)).
insert the collaboration request cost map layer into the LCM container when a predetermined number of cells in the LCM have a confidence level lower than a threshold confidence level (see; par. [0107] of Zhang teaches cells in container and compared to a lower confidence, par. [0155] cost maps).
Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu in further view of Atrash teaches does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Zhang teaches generate or update the cost map with confidence levels for each of the one or more perceived objects (see; pg. 9, par. [0005] of Zhang teaches determining a statically figure layer that provides a position in once fixation would not change frequent occurrence (i.e. confidence) determining an navigation of barriers in an environment).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Lu teaches a layered costmaps for context sensitive navigation and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor and Congbing which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Atrash teaches a dynamic positioning of autonomous mobile devices using cost map data and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor, Congbing, and Lu which teaches the object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Zhang teaches a dynamic route guidance method oriented to urban traffic and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor, Congbing, Lu, and Atrash which object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor, Congbing, Lu, and Atrash discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor, Congbing, Lu, and Atrash fails to disclose generate or update the cost map with confidence levels for each of the one or more perceived objects.
Zhang discloses generate or update the cost map with confidence levels for each of the one or more perceived objects.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Taylor, Congbing, Lu, and Atrash disclose generate or update the cost map with confidence levels for each of the one or more perceived objects as taught by Zhang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor, Congbing, Lu, Atrash, and Zhang teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 38, see discussion of claim 37 above, while Taylor in view of Congbing in further view of Lu in further view of Atrash in further view of Zhang teaches the system above, Taylor does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Congbing teaches detect one or more objects since a previous CPM generation event resulting in a change of the perceived obstacle cost map layer and the aggregated cost map layer; and one of: insert only the aggregated cost map layer in the LCM container; or insert the perceived obstacle cost map layer and the aggregated cost map layer in the LCM container (see; pg. 9, par. 5 of Congbing teaches a change by adding a new barrier detected multiple layers (i.e. aggravated) that uses new multiple layer maps with additions of new obstacle updated multiple layers).
The Examiner notes that Taylor teaches similar to the instant application teaches object re-identification using self-dissimilarity. Specifically, Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Congbing teaches a map structuring system identifying barriers and the recognition of multiple types of carriers and as it is comparable in certain respects to Taylor which object re-identification using self-dissimilarity as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Taylor discloses the identifying an object using at least one feature map and a plurality of cells and determining differences between feature maps. However, Taylor fails to disclose detect one or more objects since a previous CPM generation event resulting in a change of the perceived obstacle cost map layer and the aggregated cost map layer; and one of: insert only the aggregated cost map layer in the LCM container; or insert the perceived obstacle cost map layer and the aggregated cost map layer in the LCM container.
Congbing discloses detect one or more objects since a previous CPM generation event resulting in a change of the perceived obstacle cost map layer and the aggregated cost map layer; and one of: insert only the aggregated cost map layer in the LCM container; or insert the perceived obstacle cost map layer and the aggregated cost map layer in the LCM container.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Taylor detect one or more objects since a previous CPM generation event resulting in a change of the perceived obstacle cost map layer and the aggregated cost map layer; and one of: insert only the aggregated cost map layer in the LCM container; or insert the perceived obstacle cost map layer and the aggregated cost map layer in the LCM container as taught by Congbing since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Taylor and Congbing teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to the collective determination and perception of objects nearby and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim