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 .
Priority
1. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application filed in People’s Republic of China on 02/04/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2023 and 04/20/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby (US 2019/0325750) and further in view of Lynch et al (U.S.2013/0226442).
3. As per claims 1,11,21 Bielby disclosed a map updating method, obtaining sensing data of an abnormal scenario;
obtaining first image data of the location and from the first time; obtaining second image data of the location and from the first time;
obtaining second image data of the location and from a second time [In some embodiments, payload 13 may include the discrete location of hazard 10. In one such embodiment, vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 may determine the discrete location of hazard 10 and include it directly in payload 13. For example, vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 may be configured to determine how far away hazard 10 is from vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 (e.g., using ranging technologies such as radar, sonar, LIDAR, infrared), and use this in combination with its own known location to determine the location of hazard 10 for inclusion in payload 13] (Paragraph. 0050), wherein the second time is before the abnormal scenario occurring at the location and wherein the second image data does not include any vehicles or pedestrians [ in some cases, it may be possible for vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 may be able to determine the nature of hazard 10 (e.g., pedestrian, bicyclist, animal, large vs. small debris, large vs. small patch of ice) by further processing data from sensors 220 (or from deployed sensor 500 itself). For example, to the extent cameras or image sensors are utilized, person-, animal-, or object-recognition software may be employed to determine the nature of hazard 10] (Paragraph. 0051);
Calculating, based on the sensing data, a minimum safety boundary in the abnormal scenario (Bielby, Paragraph. 0035);
wherein the minimum safety boundary is for identifying, on a map, a minimum influence range of the abnormal scenario on traffic (Paragraph. 0072;0031); and obtaining second sensing data of the location; removing the minimum safety boundary from the map based on the second sensing data indicating the abnormal scenario at the location has ended [Representative sensors 220 configured to collect information concerning operational driving characteristics may include, without limitation, tachometers like vehicle speed sensors or wheel speed sensor, brake pressure sensors, fuel flow sensors, steering angle sensors, location sensors (e.g., GPS, GNSS) and the like. In various embodiments, some or all of the operational information collected by such sensors may be included in the hazard warning message 12 generated by vehicle 200 for consideration by vehicle(s) 300 in determining which actions to take in response to hazard 10] (Paragraph. 0036) & [First, as configured, system 110 may be able to provide warnings to vehicles 300 at distances far from the hazard 10, thereby providing vehicle 300 with more notice and options for rerouting.] (Paragraph. 0031) & [in various embodiments, may be further configured to estimate how much any of the information contained in payload 13 may have changed during the delay, in an attempt to avoid operating on dated information.] (Paragraph. 0056). Examiner interpreted the “abnormal scenario at the location” as “hazard warning message by the location sensors” and the “removing the minimum safety boundary” as “estimate how much of any of the information may have changed” and “data indicating the abnormal scenario at the location has ended” as in an attempt to avoid operating on dated information in other words the information updated based on date and time; and
sending, after removing the minimum safety boundary from the map [use this in combination with its own known location to determine the location of hazard 10 for inclusion in payload 13. In such an embodiment, vehicle 200 may know its own location using GPS or similar technologies, and deployed sensor 500, if static, may be pre-programmed with its location] (Paragraph. 0050), the map to the autonomous vehicle for the autonomous vehicle is no longer avoid the abnormal scenario [location sensors (e.g., GPS, GNSS) and the like. In various embodiments, some or all of the operational information collected by such sensors may be included in the hazard warning message 12 generated by vehicle 200 for consideration by vehicle(s) 300 in determining which actions to take in response to hazard 10. Additionally or alternatively, in various embodiments, some or all of the operational information collected by such sensors may be used by vehicle 200 itself in evaluating options for avoiding a collision with hazard 10. For example, vehicle 200 may utilize ranging information and vehicle speed to evaluate if vehicle 200 is capable of stopping in time to avoid colliding with hazard 10] (Paragraph. 0036).
However, Bielby did not explicitly disclose updating the map based on the minimum safety boundary. Sending, after updating the map, the map to an autonomous vehicle for the autonomous vehicle to avoid the abnormal scenario.
In the same field of endeavor Lynch disclosed the map updates to be for an overlapping region such that part of the previous region is not displayed, part is displayed, and a new portion of region is added. The projection is for the route, all roads, or a subset of the roads in the current region for a given repetition. For use with a computer or mobile device with a user interface, the repetition may be in response to a user changing a cursor position, selecting a new route, changing the region (e.g., selecting a new scale, selecting a new region, or translating a current region), changing a period, changing a road, and/or combinations thereof (Paragraph. 0068). As the region represented by the map is updated, additional traffic flow data is obtained. Alternatively, traffic flow data for locations not yet on the map is obtained. As another example, the traffic flow information for all or a sub-set of locations on the map is obtained (Paragraph. 0047)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated the map updates to be for an overlapping region such that part of the previous region is not displayed, part is displayed, and a new portion of region is added. The projection is for the route, all roads, or a subset of the roads in the current region for a given repetition. For use with a computer or mobile device with a user interface, the repetition may be in response to a user changing a cursor position, selecting a new route, changing the region (e.g., selecting a new scale, selecting a new region, or translating a current region), changing a period, changing a road, and/or combinations thereof, As the region represented by the map is updated, additional traffic flow data is obtained. Alternatively, traffic flow data for locations not yet on the map is obtained. As another example, the traffic flow information for all or a sub-set of locations on the map is obtained as taught by Lynch in the method and system of Bielby increase the efficiency of map navigation.
4. As per claims 2,12 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein calculating the minimum safety boundary comprises: obtaining based on the sensing data a view of driving, a vehicle safe drivable area in the abnormal scenario; and further calculating the minimum safety boundary based on the vehicle safe drivable area (Bielby, Paragraph. 0027).
5. As per claims 3,13 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein the sensing data comprises second sensing data of an in-vehicle sensor, and wherein obtaining at vehicle safe drivable area comprises: inputting the second sensing data into a pre-trained neural network; and obtain the vehicle safe drivable area based on the inputting (Bielby, Paragraph. 0036).
6. As per claims 4,14 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein inputting the third sensing data comprises: inputting first types of sensing data from the in-vehicle sensor into types of corresponding pre-trained neural networks obtaining estimates of the vehicle drivable area based on inputting the first types of sensing data into the second types of corresponding pre-trained neutral networks and fusing the estimates of the vehicle drivable area to obtain a fused vehicle drivable area (Bielby, Paragraph. 0066).
7. As per claims 5,15 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein obtaining the sensing data comprises obtaining sensing data of an in-vehicle sensor and wherein obtaining the second image data comprises obtaining road surveillance sensing data and wherein obtaining the road surveillance sensing data comprises:
obtaining location information of the abnormal scenario in the sensing data (Bielby, Paragraph. 0051);
determining a set of road surveillance cameras near the abnormal scenario based on the location information (Bielby, Paragraph. 0022); and
obtaining the road surveillance sensing data from the set of road surveillance cameras, wherein the road surveillance sensing data comprises first road surveillance data collected before detecting the abnormal scenario and second road surveillance data collected after detecting the abnormal scenario (Bielby, Paragraph. 0012).
8. As per claims 6,16 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein obtaining the vehicle safe drivable area comprises comparing the road surveillance data with the second road surveillance data to obtain the vehicle safe drivable area (Bielby, Paragraph. 0051).
9. As per claims 7,17 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein calculating the minimum safety boundary further comprises further calculating the minimum safety boundary in the abnormal scenario based on location information of the abnormal scenario and the vehicle drivable area (Bielby, Paragraph. 0043).
10. As per claims 8,18 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein calculating the minimum safety boundary further comprises:
obtaining, based on the sensing data of the in-vehicle sensor, coordinates of the vehicle drivable area in an ego vehicle coordinate system using the location information of the abnormal scenario as a reference point (Bielby, Paragraph. 0075);
and converting based on a mapping relationship between the ego vehicle coordinate system and a global coordinate system, the first coordinates of the vehicle safe drivable area into second coordinates system and a global coordinate system (Bielby, Paragraph. 0034), and obtaining by the map, the minimum safety boundary in the abnormal scenario based on the second coordinates (Lynch, Paragraph. 0051). The claim 8 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
11. As per claim 9 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein obtaining the first sensing data comprises triggering by an in-vehicle communication apparatus, an in-vehicle sensor to obtain the first sensing data when detecting the abnormal scenario (Bielby, Paragraph. 0036).
12. As per claim 10 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein the third sensing data comprises: obstacle information or point cloud information an in-vehicle radar, an image of an in-vehicle camera, a video of the in-vehicle camera or location information an in-vehicle satellite positioning receiving system (Bielby, Paragraph. 0035).
13. As per claim 19 Bielby-Lynch disclosed wherein the programming instructions when executed by the at least one processor further cause the map updating apparatus to be configured to obtain the sensing data of the abnormal scenario when detecting the abnormal scenario when detecting the abnormal scenario Lynch, Paragraph. 0068). The claim 19 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument is as followed.
A. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “obtaining first image data of the location and from the first time; obtaining second image data of the location and from the first time; obtaining second image data of the location and from a second time, wherein the second time is before the abnormal scenario occurring at the location and wherein the second image data does not include any vehicles or pedestrians”.
As to applicant’s argument Bielby disclosed, “[In some embodiments, payload 13 may include the discrete location of hazard 10. In one such embodiment, vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 may determine the discrete location of hazard 10 and include it directly in payload 13. For example, vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 may be configured to determine how far away hazard 10 is from vehicle 200 or deployed sensor 500 (e.g., using ranging technologies such as radar, sonar, LIDAR, infrared), and use this in combination with its own known location to determine the location of hazard 10 for inclusion in payload 13]. [location sensors (e.g., GPS, GNSS) and the like. In various embodiments, some or all of the operational information collected by such sensors may be included in the hazard warning message 12 generated by vehicle 200 for consideration by vehicle(s) 300 in determining which actions to take in response to hazard 10. Additionally or alternatively, in various embodiments, some or all of the operational information collected by such sensors may be used by vehicle 200 itself in evaluating options for avoiding a collision with hazard 10. For example, vehicle 200 may utilize ranging information and vehicle speed to evaluate if vehicle 200 is capable of stopping in time to avoid colliding with hazard 10] (Paragraph. 0036).
B. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “obtaining second sensing data of the location; and removing the minimum safety boundary from the map based on the second sensing data indicating the abnormal scenario at the location has ended”.
As to applicant’s argument Bielby disclosed, “[Representative sensors 220 configured to collect information concerning operational driving characteristics may include, without limitation, tachometers like vehicle speed sensors or wheel speed sensor, brake pressure sensors, fuel flow sensors, steering angle sensors, location sensors (e.g., GPS, GNSS) and the like. In various embodiments, some or all of the operational information collected by such sensors may be included in the hazard warning message 12 generated by vehicle 200 for consideration by vehicle(s) 300 in determining which actions to take in response to hazard 10] (Paragraph. 0036) & [First, as configured, system 110 may be able to provide warnings to vehicles 300 at distances far from the hazard 10, thereby providing vehicle 300 with more notice and options for rerouting.] (Paragraph. 0031) & [in various embodiments, may be further configured to estimate how much any of the information contained in payload 13 may have changed during the delay, in an attempt to avoid operating on dated information.] (Paragraph. 0056). Examiner interpreted the “abnormal scenario at the location” as “hazard warning message by the location sensors”, “removing the minimum safety boundary” as estimate how much of any of the information may have changed and “data indicating the abnormal scenario at the location has ended” as in an attempt to avoid operating on dated information in other words the information updated based on date and time.
C. Applicant argued that there is no teaching, suggestions or motivation to combine the references.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant alleged that. Lynch taught in the method and system of Bielby to increase the efficiency of map navigation
Conclusion
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
17. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
18. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights