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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 18-20, 22-30, 32-33 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, on Pages 9-12, filed 12/30/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 9 that the limitation of “wherein at least one actuator acting upon a dynamic system of the vehicle or robot is activated using an activation signal, based on the ascertained position or pose” integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because the specification establishes that this claim limitation achieves concrete, technological improvements in the field of autonomous movement of a robot or vehicle by increasing operational reliability during automated execution of its movements. Applicant details that they disagree with the Patent Office argument because of the recent precedential decision in Ex parte Desjardins. Applicant argues on Page 10 that the claim as a whole is approach is mandatory based on the Desjardins decision. Applicant argues that the Office Action rebuttal truncates the limitation on which the amendment relied under Prong Two and that lopping off the highlighted phrase, the Patent office as analyzed a claim limitation that omits the feature that achieves the technological improvement. Applicant argues on Page 12 that the dependent claims fail to confirm to claim-by-claim approach.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact patterns between Ex Parte Desjardins and the instant application are different. Desjardins details a method of training a machine learning model where-as the instant application details the method of position determination of a vehicle or a robot or a mobile device. Examiner notes the December 5th, 2025 memorandum on “Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins” details “These updates are not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and are meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance”. Furthermore the memorandum details “As such, Examiners are expected to consider existing precedent like Enfish, as discussed in MPEP § 2106, in addition to these updates when assessing eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly when evaluating claims related to machine learning or artificial intelligence.” Examiner notes that the claimed invention is not directed specifically to machine learning or artificial intelligence.
Examiner notes that the entirety of the claim limitation was considered, as evidenced by the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection detailing “Under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the actuator is a generic machinery component that performs an existing process/task (i.e. actuating) that is only an outcome related to the activation signal (that is based on the ascertained position or pose). As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(f), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”. That is, Examiner points out that the limitation is evaluated specifically as detailed to the outcome related to the activation signal that is based on the ascertained position or pose. As detailed above, the limitation is detailing a generic machinery component (actuator) that is performing an existing process (actuating) based on an activated signal that is based on the ascertained position or pose. The MPEP further cites in 2106.05(f) that “A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes "the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result).” That is, the claim is broadly reciting a generic actuator that is actuating upon a signal in relation to the position or pose. As the claim limitation is so broadly reciting a generic actuator, it amounts to “apply it” as it is a generic machine component that is detailed as “actuating” which does not detail what action actually is occurring in response to the position or pose. The MPEP cites in 2106.05(a) that “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers 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. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.” As detailed above, the actuation of an actuator based on the pose or position are mere instructions to apply an exception consideration.
As the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection details for dependent claims 19-20, 22, and 26-30 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim limitations of Claims 19-20, 22, and 29further detail ascertaining steps and calculating steps which fall under the judicial exception. Claim 26 further details a property of the measured data including an intensity of electromagnetic radiation, along with claims 27-28 and 30 further detailing limitations associated with the measured data, which would constitute necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. recording with a sensor) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus dependent Claims 19-20, 22, and 26-30 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 13, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18-20, 22, 28, and 32-33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously disclosed prior art Zaum (US20200348685) in view of previously disclosed prior art Haueis (DE102015003666A1), previously disclosed prior art King (US20200211394), and newly discovered prior art Wheeler (US20180188372). Wheeler in [0037] and [0048] the sensors measuring the surrounding setting of the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-20, 22, 26-30, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
18. (Currently Amended) A method for position determination of a vehicle or a robot or a mobile device, comprising the following steps:
recording measured data from surroundings of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device using at least one sensor situated at the vehicle or robot or mobile device;
compressing the measured data to form a compressed data item, wherein a setting surrounding the vehicle or the robot is recorded from a plurality of perspectives before the compressing;
searching for the compressed data item in a map, the map associating compressed data items at least with a position or pose in two- or three-dimensional space; and
in response to the compressed data item being found in the map, using the position or pose associated with the compressed data item by the map to ascertain the position or pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device, wherein at least one actuator acting upon a dynamic system of the vehicle or robot is activated using an activation signal, based on the ascertained position or pose.
32. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory machine-readable data medium on which is stored a computer program for position determination of a vehicle or a robot or a mobile device, the computer program, when executed by one or more computers, causing the one or more computer to perform the following steps:
recording measured data from surroundings of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device using at least one sensor situated at the vehicle or robot or mobile device;
compressing the measured data to form a compressed data item, wherein a setting surrounding the vehicle or the robot is recorded from a plurality of perspectives before the compressing;
searching for the compressed data item in a map, the map associating compressed data items at least with a position or pose in two- or three-dimensional space; and
in response to the compressed data item being found in the map, using the position or pose associated with the compressed data item by the map to ascertain the position or pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device, wherein at least one actuator acting upon a dynamic system of the vehicle or robot is activated using an activation signal, based on the ascertained position or pose
33. (Currently Amended) A computer configured for position determination of a vehicle or a robot or a mobile device, the computer configured to:
record measured data from surroundings of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device using at least one sensor situated at the vehicle or robot or mobile device;
compress the measured data to form a compressed data item, wherein a setting surrounding the vehicle or the robot is recorded from a plurality of perspectives before the compressing;
search for the compressed data item in a map, the map associating compressed data items at least with a position or pose in two- or three-dimensional space; and
in response to the compressed data item being found in the map, use the position or pose associated with the compressed data item by the map to ascertain the position or pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device, wherein at least one actuator acting upon a dynamic system of the vehicle or robot is activated using an activation signal, based on the ascertained position or pose.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 18-22, 26-31, and 33 are considered to be in a statutory category. Claim 32 is not considered to be in a statutory Category because it is considered to be computer software per se.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematical and mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 18 and 32-33 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because recording measured data from surroundings with a sensor is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. recording with a sensor) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The computer of Claim 32-33 is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be a generic computer. Generic computer elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. The additional limitation of “wherein each of the compressed data items is stored in the map in association with a pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device at a point in time of the recording of the measured data” is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as the limitation is detailing the storing of the compressed data in the map, which amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional limitation of “wherein at least one actuator acting upon a dynamic system of the vehicle or robot is activated using an activation signal, based on the ascertained position or pose” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as an actuator acting upon a system is considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception. Under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the actuator is a generic machinery component that performs an existing process/task (i.e. actuating) that is only an outcome related to the activation signal (that is based on the ascertained position or pose). As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(f), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 19-20, 22, and 26-30 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 23-25 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The limitations of Claim 23 detail moving a vehicle/robot/mobile device to measurement positions, recording the data, compressing the data, and storing the compressed data into a map. Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional limitations of moving a vehicle, and storing the compressed data in the map based on the position integrate the judicial exception into the practical application of creating a map to determine a position of a vehicle.
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.
Claims 18-20, 22, 28, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaum (US20200348685) in view of Haueis (DE102015003666A1; Disclosed as Foreign Document #1 in IDS filed 12/10/2021), King (US20200211394), and Wheeler (US20180188372)
In regards to Claims 18 and 32-33, Zaum teaches “recording measured data from surroundings of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device using at least one sensor situated at the vehicle or robot or mobile device (The goal of graph SLAM or full SLAM, Simultaneous Localization And Mapping, is to ascertain the actual path of the measuring vehicle which the measuring vehicle has taken through the surroundings and/or the real positions of the surroundings from the measurements of the measuring vehicle – [0006]; ascertain data of at least one object in surroundings of vehicle 200 – Figure 5);
compressing the data to form a compressed data item (combine characteristic structures to form a simplification structure of the object 220, i.e. compressing the data – Figure 5);
searching for the compressed data item in a map (SLAM has the goal to ascertain the actual path of the measuring vehicle which the measuring vehicle has taken through the surroundings and the real positions of the surroundings from the measurements of the measuring vehicle – [0006]; SLAM generated maps so that it enables a precise feature-based localization – [0041]; the two mentioned probability ranges A1 and A2 are advantageously substantially reduced by a representation of the object “utility pole” in the semi-semantic way of using multiple points, i.e. compressed data, and as a result in comparison to the conditions, more accurate location of the vehicle is achievable with the aid of the featured-based localization map – [0054]), the map associating compressed data items at least with a position or pose in two- or three-dimensional space (incorporate simplification structure, i.e. map associating compressed data, into the feature-based localization map, i.e. two/three dimensional space – Figure 5; feature-based localization map for a vehicle – [0001]).”
Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “in response to the compressed data item being found in the map, using the position or pose associated with the compressed data item by the map to ascertain the position or pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device”
Haueis teaches “in response to the compressed data item being found in the map, using the position or pose associated with the compressed data item by the map to ascertain the position or pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device (spatial clusters of the recorded measurement data in the measuring area are determined and summarized, and stored as a cluster, where the cluster is a reduction in measurement data to be stored, i.e. compressing the measured data – [0012]-[0013]; cluster maps, i.e. compressed data, generated by the method are used for a self-localization, i.e. ascertain the position, of the vehicle with a fast SLAM method – [0074])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum to incorporate the teaching of Haueis to compress the measured data into clusters and to use self-localization with the fast SLAM method. By using the clusters this is an improvement to reduction of the data stored and using the self-localization with the fast SLAM method this is an improvement to the processing of the measurement data of the sensor.
Zaum in view of Haueis is silent with regards to the language of “wherein at least one actuator acting upon a dynamic system of the vehicle or robot is activated using an activation signal, based on the ascertained position or pose.”
King teaches “wherein at least one actuator acting upon a dynamic system of the vehicle or robot is activated using an activation signal, based on the ascertained position or pose (localizer provides the position and/or orientation of the vehicle to the components of the secondary system, including the drive manager – [0065]; drive manager receives signals from the primary system for control of an actuator – [0089]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis to incorporate the teaching of King to use the position and orientation details of the vehicle for control by the drive manager of the steering and braking systems. By using the position and orientation for control with the drive manager of a vehicle, this is an improvement to the accurate detection of a potential collision and deployment of safety measures to avoid the collision.
Zaum in view of Haueis, and King are silent with regards to the language of “compressing the measured data to form a compressed data item, wherein a setting surrounding the vehicle or the robot is recorded from a plurality of perspectives before the compressing.”
Wheeler teaches “compressing the measured data to form a compressed data item, wherein a setting surrounding the vehicle or the robot is recorded from a plurality of perspectives before the compressing (“The vehicle sensors 105 allow the vehicle 150 to detect the surroundings of the vehicle as well as information describing the current state of the vehicle, for example, information describing the location and motion parameters of the vehicle. The vehicle sensors 105 comprise a camera, a light detection and ranging sensor (LIDAR), a global positioning system (GPS) navigation system, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), and others. The vehicle has one or more cameras that capture images of the surroundings of the vehicle. A LIDAR surveys the surroundings of the vehicle by measuring distance to a target by illuminating that target with a laser light pulses, and measuring the reflected pulses” – [0037]; representation generation module receives the sensor data and generates image representations of the sensor data, then provides the representation to the compression module to efficiently compress – [0048]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis, and King to incorporate the teaching of Wheeler to utilize a plurality of sensors on the vehicle to detect the surroundings of the vehicle before the compression of the data. By utilizing a plurality of sensors to detect the surroundings a vehicle this is an improvement that yields predictable results to the encoding of data for generating high definition maps with high precision for vehicle navigation.
In regards to Claim 19, Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “the ascertained position or pose is combined with a position or pose ascertained in another way and/or checked for plausibility.”
Haueis further teaches “the ascertained position or pose is combined with a position or pose ascertained in another way and/or checked for plausibility (clusters are stored as verified clusters in an updated cluster data set, i.e. plausibility checked – [0055]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler to incorporate the further teaching of Haueis to verify the data. By verifying the clusters to save this is an improvement to the ensure maximum flexibility while maintaining short access time.
In regards to Claim 20, Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “in addition to the position or pose, an uncertainty of the position or pose is also ascertained.”
Haueis further teaches “in addition to the position or pose, an uncertainty of the position or pose is also ascertained (equation 3 details the deviation parameter msq, i.e. uncertainty of the position – [0043]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler to incorporate the further teaching of Haueis to determine the deviation parameter. By determining the deviation parameter as part of the cluster data, this is an improvement to the amount of data being stored and saved in a data cluster so that the process creates and updates a data record of a map.
In regards to Claim 22, Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zaum further teaches “the ascertained position or pose is used to ascertain an actual trajectory of the vehicle or the robot (digital maps ascertained from the sensor data allow the automatically driving vehicles to localize themselves in the digital map and ascertain the trajectory of the vehicle – [0033]).”
Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “a deviation of the ascertained actual trajectory from a setpoint trajectory is calculated; an activation signal is ascertained, which, when supplied to at least one actuator acting upon a dynamic system of the vehicle or the robot, is expected to result in a reduction of the deviation during the further travel and/or movement; and the at least one actuator is activated using the activation signal.”
King further teaches “a deviation of the ascertained actual trajectory from a setpoint trajectory is calculated (primary trajectory and secondary trajectory of the vehicle are generated with the secondary trajectory being used when the primary trajectory is invalid or otherwise unacceptable, i.e. deviates – [0031]; based on the validation operations, secondary system determines a state for the trajectory, whether the trajectory is valid state and consistent with the current pose of the autonomous vehicle – [0038]); an activation signal is ascertained, which, when supplied to at least one actuator acting upon a dynamic system of the vehicle or the robot, is expected to result in a reduction of the deviation during the further travel and/or movement (secondary system selects an output trajectory when the primary trajectory is invalid – [0041]); and the at least one actuator is activated using the activation signal (localizer provides the position and/or orientation of the vehicle to the components of the secondary system, including the drive manager – [0065]; drive manager receives signals from the primary system for control of an actuator – [0089]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler to incorporate the further teaching of King to use the position and orientation details of the vehicle for control by the drive manager of the steering and braking systems. By using the position and orientation for control with the drive manager of a vehicle, this is an improvement to the accurate detection of a potential collision and deployment of safety measures to avoid the collision.
In regards to Claim 28, Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zaum further teaches “wherein the measured data and/or the compressed data item are converted into a point cloud (SLAM-based map creation – Figure 2C, 3; complex object is symbolically shown with multiple points as a semi-semantic representation of the object, i.e. point cloud – [0052]), in that individual values of the measured data and/or the compressed data item are assigned to locations in the two- or three-dimensional space from which they originate (sensor data is collected with landmarks for position with the digital map, i.e. 2d dimensional space – [0033]; complex object is symbolically shown with multiple points as a semi-semantic representation of the object, i.e. point cloud – [0052]).”
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaum (US20200348685) in view of Wheeler (US20180188372).
In regards to Claim 23, Zaum teaches “moving the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device to different measurement positions within a predefined area, in which the map is to facilitate a position determination (SLAM, Simultaneous Localization And Mapping, without local reference, an automated measuring vehicle moves along an uknown path having defined measuring positions, the measuring vehicle being able to estimate its movement by movement estimations and from each position, the measuring vehicle ascertains its surroundings with the aid of a series of measurements by targeting identified observations of landmarks – [0004]);
recording respective measured data from surroundings of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device at each respective measurement position of the measurement positions (ascertain data of at least one object in surroundings of vehicle 200 – Figure 5);
compressing each of the respective data to form a compressed data item (combine characteristic structures to form simplification structure, i.e. compressed data, of the object 220 – Figure 5); and
storing each of the compressed data items in the map at least in association with the respective measurement position (incorporate simplification structure, i.e. compressed data, into the feature-based localization map 230 – Figure 5)”
Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “compressing each of the respective measured data to form a compressed data item, wherein a setting surrounding the vehicle or the robot is recorded from a plurality of perspectives before the compressing”
Wheeler teaches “compressing each of the respective measured data to form a compressed data item, wherein a setting surrounding the vehicle or the robot is recorded from a plurality of perspectives before the compressing (“The vehicle sensors 105 allow the vehicle 150 to detect the surroundings of the vehicle as well as information describing the current state of the vehicle, for example, information describing the location and motion parameters of the vehicle. The vehicle sensors 105 comprise a camera, a light detection and ranging sensor (LIDAR), a global positioning system (GPS) navigation system, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), and others. The vehicle has one or more cameras that capture images of the surroundings of the vehicle. A LIDAR surveys the surroundings of the vehicle by measuring distance to a target by illuminating that target with a laser light pulses, and measuring the reflected pulses” – [0037]; representation generation module receives the sensor data and generates image representations of the sensor data, then provides the representation to the compression module to efficiently compress – [0048]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum to incorporate the teaching of Wheeler to utilize a plurality of sensors on the vehicle to detect the surroundings of the vehicle before the compression of the data. By utilizing a plurality of sensors to detect the surroundings a vehicle this is an improvement that yields predictable results to the encoding of data for generating high definition maps with high precision for vehicle navigation.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaum in view of Wheeler as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of King.
In regards to Claim 24, Zaum in view of Wheeler discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zaum further teaches “each of the compressed data items is stored in the map in association with the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device at a point in time of the recording of the respective measured data (incorporation unit 140 provides for incorporation the simplification structure into the feature-based localization map, with the process as given in Figure 5 – [0061]-[0067]).”
Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “stored in the map in association with a pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device.”
King teaches “stored in the map in association with a pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device (localization component receives the sensor data and determines a pose of the vehicle relative to the map of an environment surrounding the vehicle – [0050]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Wheeler to incorporate the teaching of King to use the position and orientation details of the vehicle for with the map relative to the surroundings. By using the position and orientation with the map relative to the surroundings, this is an improvement to the accurate detection of a potential collision and deployment of safety measures to avoid the collision.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaum in view of Wheeler as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Haueis.
In regards to Claim 25, Zaum in view of Wheeler discloses the claimed invention as detailed above in Claim 23. Zaum further teaches “a position or pose, determined on the basis of the measured data and the map using particular steps, is used to ascertain the measurement position and/or the pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device at a point in time of the recording of the respective measured data (SLAM without local reference, an automated measuring vehicle moves along an uknown path having defined measuring positions, the measuring vehicle being able to estimate its movement by movement estimations, and from each position the measuring vehicle ascertains its surroundings with the aid of a series of measurements by targeting identified observations of landmarks – [0004]), the particular steps including: searching for the compressed data item in the map (SLAM has the goal to ascertain the actual path of the measuring vehicle which the measuring vehicle has taken through the surroundings and the real positions of the surroundings from the measurements of the measuring vehicle – [0006]; SLAM generated maps so that it enables a precise feature-based localization – [0041]; the two mentioned probability ranges A1 and A2 are advantageously substantially reduced by a representation of the object “utility pole” in the semi-semantic way of using multiple points, i.e. compressed data item, and as a result in comparison to the conditions, more accurate location of the vehicle is achievable with the aid of the featured-based localization map – [0054]), the map associating compressed data items at least with a position or pose in two- or three-dimensional space (incorporate simplification structure, i.e. map associating compressed data, into the feature-based localization map, i.e. two/three dimensional space – Figure 5; feature-based localization map for a vehicle – [0001]).”
Zaum in view of Wheeler is silent with regards to the language of “in response to the compressed data item being found in the map, using the position or pose associated with the compressed data item by the map to ascertain the position or pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device.”
Haueis teaches “in response to the compressed data item being found in the map, using the position or pose associated with the compressed data item by the map to ascertain the position or pose of the vehicle or the robot or the mobile device (cluster maps, i.e. compressed data, generated by the method are used for a self-localization, i.e. ascertain the position, of the vehicle with a fast SLAM method – [0074])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Wheeler to incorporate the teaching of Haueis to compress the measured data into clusters and to use self-localization with the fast SLAM method. By using the clusters this is an improvement to reduction of the data stored and using the self-localization with the fast SLAM method this is an improvement to the processing of the measurement data of the sensor.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Gipson (US20220221558).
In regards to Claim 26 Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler is silent with regards to the language of “the measured data include an intensity of electromagnetic radiation, which was received as a response of the surroundings to an electromagnetic scanning radiation.”
Gipson teaches “the measured data include an intensity of electromagnetic radiation, which was received as a response of the surroundings to an electromagnetic scanning radiation (point cloud data generated from LIDAR sensor with the point cloud including intensity data – [0025]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler to incorporate the teaching of Gipson to use the intensity of the LIDAR data for the point cloud data. By using the LIDAR intensity data this is an improvement to the operation of the assistive and autonomous functionality of a vehicle by improving the accuracy, speed of analysis, and associated control of vehicle operation.
In regards to Claim 27, Zaum in view of Haueis, King, Wheeler, and Gipson discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “those of the measured data which indicate an intensity and/or an intensity gradient above a predefined threshold value, are selected for forming the compressed data item.”
Gipson further teaches “those of the measured data which indicate an intensity and/or an intensity gradient above a predefined threshold value, are selected for forming the compressed data item (point cloud data compression is involved with a compression circuit – [0026]; compression circuit determines whether to compress or not to compress based on a specified threshold – [0036]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler to incorporate the further teaching of Gipson to use the compression circuit to compress based on a specified threshold. By using the LIDAR intensity data with a compression circuit based off a threshold, this is an improvement to the operation of the assistive and autonomous functionality of a vehicle by improving the accuracy, speed of analysis, and associated control of vehicle operation.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Choi (US20100094460).
In regards to Claim 29, Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “the measured data or the compressed data item are transformed into a coordinate system, in which the map is static”
Choi teaches “the measured data or the compressed data item are transformed into a coordinate system, in which the map is static (conversion of coordinate systems – [0013]; absolute position of the robot using the relative position between robot and feature data in a world coordinate system, i.e. static map – [0034]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis, King, and Wheeler to incorporate the teaching of Choi to perform conversion of one coordinate system to another coordinate system. By converting the coordinate system, this is an improvement to reduce non-linear components in the calculation process and improves the SLAM performance.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaum in view of Haueis, King, Wheeler, and Choi as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Lenser (US20080027591).
In regards to Claim 30, Zaum in view of Haueis, King, Wheeler, and Choi discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “the compressed data item is formed from the transformed collected measured data” but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because performing a transformation of a coordinate system does not change the relative values to each other, instead it either performs a translation, rotation or combination of the translation and rotation to each and every point. As Zaum teaches in Figure 5 that the characteristic structures are combined to form the simplification structure, performing this action after the coordinate system has been changed would have the same simplification structure, i.e. compressed data.
Zaum is silent with regards to the language of “the collected measured data are transformed into the coordinate system, in which the map is static .”
Choi further teaches “the collected measured data are transformed into the coordinate system, in which the map is static (conversion of coordinate systems – [0013]; absolute position of the robot using the relative position between robot and feature data in a world coordinate system, i.e. static map – [0034]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis, King, Wheeler, and Choi to incorporate the further teaching of Choi to perform conversion of one coordinate system to another coordinate system. By converting the coordinate system, this is an improvement to reduce non-linear components in the calculation process and improves the SLAM performance.
Zaum in view of Haueis, King, Wheeler, and Choi is silent with regards to the language of “the measured data are collected over a predefined period of time and/or over a predefined distance”
Lenser teaches “the measured data are collected over a predefined period of time and/or over a predefined distance (data is acquired after a predetermined distance of travel – [0172]; position data is sent at predetermined intervals of time – Claim 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaum in view of Haueis, King, Wheeler, and Choi to incorporate the teaching of Lenser to collect data over predetermined distance or time. By taking the LIDAR data over predetermined intervals of time or distance, this is an improvement to the autonomous capabilities of a vehicle so that it has persistent obstacle avoidance systems.
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 YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857