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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 12-15 have been amended and claims 2, 3, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4-15 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 08/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4-14 and 16 under USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented below in view of Osada et al.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 under USC §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. However, the Applicant has amended the claim language to remove the requirement of secondary art. Therefore, the previous rejection, under 35 USC §103, is withdrawn and a new rejection, under 35 USC §102, is presented below.
With respect to claim 15 the Applicant argues:
The applied art of Baik and Strauss is not seen to disclose or to suggest the features of amended independent Claim 15, and in particular, is not seen to disclose or to suggest at least the features of, a map appropriateness estimation unit configured to estimate appropriateness of the map information using environmental information calculated based on the map information, including whether there is a repetition pattern.
Baik and Strauss were discussed above. However, neither Baik or Strauss, whether taken alone or in combination, are seen to disclose or to suggest the foregoing features of Claim 15. Accordingly, Claim 15 is also believed to be allowable.
While the Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not teach the entirety of claim 15, the Applicant does not provide a reason as to why the prior art fails to teach the claim in its entirety. An assertion of patentability is not a persuasive argument for allowability. Therefore, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
As provided in the previous office action, Baik discloses a map a map appropriateness estimation unit configured to estimate appropriateness of the map information using environmental information calculated based on the map information, (See at least ¶ [0116]) Here, the system identifies, from the received map, the location of a stopping line, i.e., environmental information based on the map information. And determines if the reliability of the map needs to be adjusted, i.e., estimates the appropriateness, when the mapped location of the stopping line and the measured location, i.e., based on the environmental information, do not match within an error margin.) including whether there is a repetition pattern; (See at least ¶ [0116]) Here, the system identifies, from the received map, the location of a stopping line, i.e., environmental information based on the map information. And determines if the reliability of the map needs to be adjusted, i.e., estimates the appropriateness, when the mapped location of the stopping line and the measured location, i.e., based on the environmental information, do not match within an error margin.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baik et al. (US 2019/0265045 A1, “Baik”).
Regarding claim 15, Baik discloses method of providing detailed map data and system thereof and teaches:
An information processing device comprising at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: (Referring to FIG.21, the first vehicle 100 according to an embodiment may include a processor (e.g., including processing circuitry) 110, a communication interface (e.g., including communication circuitry) 160, and a sensing unit (including at least one sensor and / or sensing circuitry) 140. All of the components illustrated in FIG. 21 are not essential components of the first vehicle 100. More or less components than those illustrated in FIG.21 may be included in the first vehicle 100 – See at least ¶ [0287])
a sensor information acquisition unit configured to acquire sensor information from one or more sensors mounted on a mobile device; (the first vehicle 100 may collect traveling data while traveling a certain path (e.g., a commuting path) using at least one sensor, and may generate detailed map data using the collected traveling data – See at least ¶ [0048])
a map information generation unit configured to generate map information around the one or more sensors while the mobile device moves based on the sensor information; (The first vehicle 100 may be a vehicle that generates detailed map data. For example, the first vehicle 100 may collect traveling data while traveling a certain path (e.g., a commuting path) using at least one sensor, and may generate detailed map data using the collected traveling data – See at least ¶ [0048])
a map appropriateness estimation unit configured to estimate appropriateness of the map information using environmental information calculated based on the map information, (As another example, referring to the third traveling data 514, when there should exist a stopped line on a point B on the first path but a stopped line is at a location exceeding an allowable error range (e.g., 20 cm) from the point B, the reliability of the first detailed map data may be downward regulated – See at least ¶ [0116]; Here, the system identifies, from the received map, the location of a stopping line, i.e., environmental information based on the map information. And determines if the reliability of the map needs to be adjusted, i.e., estimates the appropriateness, when the mapped location of the stopping line and the measured location, i.e., based on the environmental information, do not match within an error margin.) including whether there is a repetition pattern; (The first detailed map data according to an embodiment may also include generation history information about the first detailed map data. The generation history information may include, but is not limited to, at least one of the number of times the first path is traveled to obtain the first detailed map data, a traveling environment during collection of the first traveling data (for example, the weather, whether there is traffic jam, and a time zone), the date when the first detailed map data is updated last, a reliability value of the first detailed map data, or the like – See at least ¶ [0077]; Here, the use of history information is a recognition of repetition of patterns)
a notification unit configured to notify the appropriateness of the map information to a display unit so that the appropriateness of the map information is displayed together with the map information on the display unit; and (According to another embodiment, the server 400 may distinguish the detailed map data with the recommendation ranking 1 from the other pieces of detailed map data on the list and display them, based on the determined recommendation ranking. For example, the server 400 may highlight or shade the detailed map data with the recommendation ranking 1 on the list – See at least ¶ [0056])
a movement control unit that controls a movement of the mobile device along a route based on the map information. (According to another embodiment , the first vehicle 100 may autonomously travel the first path , based on the first detailed map data , and may receive a feedback input with respect to the first detailed map data from a user of the first vehicle 100. The first vehicle 100 may determine the reliability of the first detailed map data, based on the feedback input of the user. For example , the feedback input of the user may include a satisfaction score. When a satisfaction score input by the user is high, the first vehicle 100 may determine the reliability to be high, and, when the satisfaction score input by the user is low, the first vehicle 100 may determine the reliability to be low. The first vehicle 100 may determine the reliability in proportion to the satisfaction score input by the user – See at least ¶ [0105])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik in view of Osada et al. (US 2021/0110177 A1, “Osada”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-14, Baik discloses method of providing detailed map data and system thereof and teaches:
An information processing device comprising at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: (Referring to FIG.21, the first vehicle 100 according to an embodiment may include a processor (e.g., including processing circuitry) 110, a communication interface (e.g., including communication circuitry) 160, and a sensing unit (including at least one sensor and/or sensing circuitry) 140. All of the components illustrated in FIG. 21 are not essential components of the first vehicle 100. More or less components than those illustrated in FIG.21 may be included in the first vehicle 100 – See at least ¶ [0287])
a sensor information acquisition unit configured to acquire sensor information from one or more sensors; (the first vehicle 100 may collect traveling data while traveling a certain path (e.g., a commuting path) using at least one sensor, and may generate detailed map data using the collected traveling data – See at least ¶ [0048])
a map information generation unit configured to generate map information around the sensor based on the sensor information; (The first vehicle 100 may be a vehicle that generates detailed map data. For example, the first vehicle 100 may collect traveling data while traveling a certain path (e.g., a commuting path) using at least one sensor, and may generate detailed map data using the collected traveling data – See at least ¶ [0048]) wherein the map information includes a plurality of feature points of objects existing around the one or more sensors; (For example , the first vehicle 100 may recognize a surrounding environment of the first vehicle 100 at 360° using an image sensor. The first vehicle 100 may obtain lanes, stop lines, and road sign information from a front camera and an around view camera, and may obtain information about neighboring vehicles, obstacles, and road structures from a RADAR sensor or a LIDAR sensor – See at least ¶ [0066])
a map appropriateness estimation unit configured to estimate appropriateness of the map information based on detection reliability of feature points of an object included in the map information [] (the first vehicle 100 may verify reliability of the generated detailed map data. When the reliability is greater than a threshold value, the first vehicle 100 may transmit the detailed map data to the server 400 and/or the second vehicle 200 – See at least ¶ [0052]; Examiner notes that the determined reliability is the same as an estimated appropriateness.)
a notification unit configured to notify the appropriateness of the map information to a display unit so that the appropriateness of the map information is displayed together with the map information on the display unit; and (According to another embodiment, the server 400 may distinguish the detailed map data with the recommendation ranking 1 from the other pieces of detailed map data on the list and display them, based on the determined recommendation ranking. For example, the server 400 may highlight or shade the detailed map data with the recommendation ranking 1 on the list – See at least ¶ [0056])
a movement control unit that controls a movement route of the mobile device along a route based on the map information. (According to another embodiment , the first vehicle 100 may autonomously travel the first path , based on the first detailed map data , and may receive a feedback input with respect to the first detailed map data from a user of the first vehicle 100. The first vehicle 100 may determine the reliability of the first detailed map data, based on the feedback input of the user. For example , the feedback input of the user may include a satisfaction score. When a satisfaction score input by the user is high, the first vehicle 100 may determine the reliability to be high, and, when the satisfaction score input by the user is low, the first vehicle 100 may determine the reliability to be low. The first vehicle 100 may determine the reliability in proportion to the satisfaction score input by the user – See at least ¶ [0105])
Baik does not explicitly teach a map appropriateness estimation unit configured to estimate appropriateness of the map information based on detection reliability of feature points of an object included in the map information wherein the detection reliability of feature points is calculated based on a total sum of absolute values of amounts of differences between a luminance of a plurality of feature points and a surrounding luminance of the plurality of feature points. However, Osada discloses an obstacle recognition device and teaches:
[] wherein the detection reliability of feature points is calculated based on a total sum of absolute values of amounts of differences between a luminance of a plurality of feature points and a surrounding luminance of the plurality of feature points; (The processing unit 40 scans the image acquired at the (N)th capture, with the pixel blocks as a template in which the feature point T (N-1) extracted from the image acquired at (N-1)th capture is located at the center. At this time, the processing unit 40 calculates the difference absolute value sum (i.e.SAD) of the illuminance in the pixel block between the (N)th image shown in FIG.4 and (N-1 )th image shown in FIG.6. Note that SAD refers to sum of absolute difference. Thus, the processing unit 40 predicts a similarity between the feature point of the (N)th image and the feature point of the (N-1)th image. Then, the processing unit 40 extracts, on the image acquired at (N)th capture, the feature point in which the difference absolute value sum of the luminance in the pixel block becomes minimum, to be the feature point T (N) in which the similarity to the feature point to the feature point T (N-1) becomes the maximum. Hence, the processing unit 40 extracts, on the (N)th image, the feature point T (N) corresponding to the feature point T (N-1) Here, the feature point T (N) and the feature point T (N-1) constitute a mutual common portion (e.g. common edge) in the common object – See at least ¶ [0049]-[0053])
In summary, Baik discloses determining a map appropriateness based on detection reliability of feature points in the surrounding travel environment. Baik does not explicitly teach a map appropriateness estimation unit configured to estimate appropriateness of the map information based on detection reliability of feature points of an object included in the map information wherein the detection reliability of feature points is calculated based on a total sum of absolute values of amounts of differences between a luminance of a plurality of feature points and a surrounding luminance of the plurality of feature points. However, Osada discloses an obstacle recognition device and teaches using the difference of the absolute value sum of illuminance in pixel blocks to determine the maximum similarity feature, i.e., a detection reliability.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method of providing detailed map data and system thereof of Baik to provide for the method for the obstacle recognition device, as taught in Osada, to provides an obstacle recognition device capable of accurately detecting an obstacle. (At Osada ¶ [0004])
Regarding claim 4, Baik further teaches:
wherein the notification unit notifies of the detection reliability with a numerical value (According to an embodiment, the server 400 may verify reliability of the detailed map data, and may provide a feedback or reward to the first vehicle 100 having provided the detailed map data, based on the reliability – See at least ¶ [0056]; As shown in Fig. 6, the reliability is a numerical value, e.g., 28, 60, 95. ) or one of a size, a shape, and a color of the feature point. (the server 400 may distinguish the detailed map data with the recommendation ranking 1 from the other pieces of detailed map data on the list and display them, based on the determined recommendation ranking. For example, the server 400 may highlight or shade, i.e., a color, the detailed map data with the recommendation ranking 1 on the list – See at least ¶ [0207])
Regarding claim 6, Baik further teaches:
wherein the map appropriateness estimation unit estimates environmental information based on the map information and estimates the appropriateness based on the environmental information. (As another example, referring to the third traveling data 514, when there should exist a stopped line on a point B on the first path but a stopped line is at a location exceeding an allowable error range (e.g., 20 cm) from the point B, the reliability of the first detailed map data may be downward regulated – See at least ¶ [0116]; Here, the system identifies, from the received map, the location of a stopping line, i.e., environmental information based on the map information. And determines if the reliability of the map needs to be adjusted, i.e., estimates the appropriateness, when the mapped location of the stopping line and the measured location, i.e., based on the environmental information, do not match within an error margin.)
Regarding claim 7, Baik further teaches:
wherein the environmental information includes one of an illumination change, whether there is a moving body, and whether there is a repetition pattern. (The first detailed map data according to an embodiment may also include generation history information about the first detailed map data. The generation history information may include, but is not limited to, at least one of the number of times the first path is traveled to obtain the first detailed map data, a traveling environment during collection of the first traveling data (for example, the weather, whether there is traffic jam , and a time zone), the date when the first detailed map data is updated last, a reliability value of the first detailed map data, or the like – See at least ¶ [0077]; Here, the use of history information is a recognition of repetition of patterns)
Regarding claim 9, Baik further teaches:
wherein the sensor information acquisition unit acquires position and posture information of the sensor, (In operation S818, the first vehicle 100 may request the second vehicle 200 for information about at least one second sensor mounted on the second vehicle 200. The information about the at least one second sensor may include information about the type of at least one second sensor mounted on the second vehicle 200, the number of second sensors for each type, a location on which In each second sensor is mounted, i.e., position and posture, and the specification of each second sensor – See at least ¶ [0145]-[0146]) and wherein the map appropriateness estimation unit calculates similarity between the pieces of position and posture information of two time points acquired by the sensor information acquisition unit and estimates the appropriateness based on the similarity. (When it is determined in operation S822 that the at least one first sensor is identical with the at least one second sensor, the first vehicle 100 may transmit the first detailed map data to the second layer 200, in operation S824 – See at least ¶ [0151]; Here, the map data is transmitted, i.e., considered appropriate, only when the sensors are identical, i.e., based on their similarity)
Regarding claim 10, Baik further teaches:
wherein the map appropriateness (FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating an example method in which the first vehicle 100 determines reliability of obtained detailed map data, according to an embodiment – See at least ¶ [0096]) estimation unit estimates the appropriateness based on a difference between a first movement amount of the sensor estimated from the map information and a second movement amount of the sensor estimated from the sensor information. (Referring to FIG.4, in operation S410, the first vehicle 100 may collect second traveling data about the first path using the at least one first sensor, while traveling the first path at a second time point different from a first time point when the first vehicle 100 obtained the first traveling data. According to an embodiment, the first vehicle 100 may collect the second traveling data in a traveling environment similar to a traveling environment where the first traveling data is collected. For example, when the first vehicle 100 collected the first traveling data at a day time zone and collected the second traveling data at a night time zone, because different types of first sensors and different sensitivities of first sensors may be used according to different intensities of light, the first traveling data may be greatly different from the second traveling data. Accordingly, reliability of the first detailed map data determined based on the second traveling data collected in a traveling environment different from that for the first traveling data by the first vehicle 100 may be inaccurate – See at least ¶ [0098]-[0099])
Regarding claim 11, Baik further teaches:
wherein the second movement amount is estimated from a motion vector obtained from the sensor information. (The RADAR sensor 226 may be a sensor configured to sense objects within an environment where the first vehicle 100 is located, using a wireless signal. The RADAR sensor 226 may also be configured to sense speeds and/or directions of objects – See at least ¶ [0296]; Examiner notes that a speed with a direction is a vector.)
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik in view of Osada, as applied to claim 1, in view of Fujita (US 2018/0225524 A1, “Fujita”).
Regarding claim 5, Baik does not explicitly teach wherein the map appropriateness estimation unit estimates the appropriateness based on a distribution of the feature points of the object calculated from the sensor information. However, Fujita discloses moving-object position estimating system, information processing apparatus and moving-object position estimating method and teaches:
wherein the map appropriateness estimation unit estimates the appropriateness based on a distribution of the feature points of the object calculated from the sensor information. (In operation S107, the position estimator 105 com pares feature point information included in the second environment map information received from the information storing apparatus 300 with feature point information included in the first environment map information obtained in S103 to estimate the position of the vehicle 200 . Thereafter, the process proceeds to S108. In operation S108 , the communication controller 104 performs control on transmitting the first environment map information for storage in the information storing apparatus 300 – See at least ¶ [0078]-[0079]; The database may also be referred to as a “DB”. It is preferable that, before the storing unit 302 stores the first environment map information, the degree of reliability of the feature point information included in the first environment map information be determined, and only the feature point information having a high degree of reliability be stored – See at least ¶ [0055])
In summary, Baik discloses using a feature point of an object to determine reliability of the map data. The combination of Baik and Osada does not explicitly teach wherein the map appropriateness estimation unit estimates the appropriateness based on a distribution of the feature points of the object calculated from the sensor information. However, Fujita discloses moving-object position estimating system, information processing apparatus and moving-object position estimating method and teaches using a plurality of feature points distributed in the environment and the accuracy of the location of those feature points to decide if a map should be uploaded to the server, i.e., the map is appropriate and reliable to use.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method of providing detailed map data and system thereof of Baik and Osada to provide for the moving-object position estimating system, as taught in Fujita, to provide a moving-object position estimating system that is capable of estimating the position of a moving object in a short period of time even when the environment changes may be provided. (At Fujita ¶ [0022])
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik in view of Osada, as applied to claim 1, in view of Raul et al. (Orb-SLAM: A Versatile and Accurate Monocular SLAM System, “Raul”).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Baik and Osada does not explicitly teach wherein the map appropriateness estimation unit estimates the appropriateness based on whether a closed route is formed in a movement path of the sensor based on the sensor information. However, Raul discloses a versatile and accurate monocular SLAM system and teaches:
wherein the map appropriateness estimation unit estimates the appropriateness based on whether a closed route is formed in a movement path of the sensor based on the sensor information. (As shown in Fig. 4, the system determines that the map is not a closed loop, i.e., a closed route. Fig. 5 shows closing the loop prior to processing the map, i.e., the map is not appropriate to process fully. Fig. 6 shows the outcome of the processed map after it has been found appropriate by the process in Fig. 5 – See at least pg. 9-10; Examiner notes that the Applicant has stated in the instant specification (¶ [0003]) that this claim is suggested by Raul.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method of providing detailed map data and system thereof of Baik and Osada to provide for the loop closure process, as taught in Raul, to enable place recognition from severe viewpoint change. (At Raul pg. 15)
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 CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights