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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 08 January 2026.
Claim(s) 34-35, 37-56, 58-63 and 85-88 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments, see remarks at page(s) 10-12, filed 08 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 34-35, 37-56, 58-63 and 85-88 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Averilla have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous art of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Averilla (US 20200132477 A1) in view of Zeng (US 20100191461 A1) in further view of Sattar et al. (US 20190073542 A1).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 34-35, 37, 40-41, 43-52, 55 and 62-63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averilla (US 20200132477 A1) in view of Zeng (US 20100191461 A1) in further view of Sattar et al. (US 20190073542 A1).
Regarding claims 34, 62 and 63, Averilla teaches a system for navigating a host vehicle, the system comprising: at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory (see at least ¶[0004]-[0005], [0031], [0092], [0103]-[0105] and [0137] regarding one or more computer processors and one or more non-transitory storage media store instructions which, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause performance of any of the embodiments), wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to: receive a plurality of images acquired by a camera onboard the host vehicle (see at least ¶[0156], [0193], [0217] and [0224] regarding an AV and images taken by cameras within the sensors can be used for image processing); generate, based on analysis of the plurality of images, a road geometry model for a segment of road forward of the host vehicle (see at least ¶[0165] and [0195] regarding a geometric model generator extracts image feature points from the sensor data and tracks the image feature points in an image sequence to determine location coordinates of the AV. The geometric model generator defines the feature of interest and performs probabilistic matching of the feature across image frames to construct an optical flow field for the AV).
Averilla does not explicitly teach wherein the road geometry model includes a three-dimensional representation of a road surface associated with the segment of road; identify at least one point along a mapped target trajectory associated with the segment of road, the mapped target trajectory corresponding to a trajectory followed by the host vehicle when navigating the segment of road; determine, based on analysis of the road geometry model, one or more road orientation parameter values for the identified at least one point; and based on the one or more road orientation parameter values and one or more operational characteristics of the host vehicle, generate an output for causing one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle. However, Zeng discloses a system and method of lane path estimation and teaches identify at least one point along a mapped target trajectory associated with the segment of road (see at least ¶[0006] “determining a plurality of particle points in front of the vehicle representing a potential path of travel from the road geometry”), the mapped target trajectory corresponding to a trajectory followed by the host vehicle when navigating the segment of road (see at least ¶[0006] “determining a plurality of particle points in front of the vehicle representing a potential path of travel from the road geometry and the vehicle position, and utilizing iteratively determined ones of the plurality of particle points to navigate the vehicle”); determine, based on analysis of the road geometry model, one or more road orientation parameter values for the identified at least one point (see claim 1 and 4 as well as ¶[0029] regarding determining a plurality of particle points in front of the vehicle representing a potential path of travel from the road geometry and the vehicle position, wherein determining the vehicle position in relation to the road geometry based upon the monitored sensor inputs comprises: determining a vehicle orientation in relation to the road geometry).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, identify at least one point along a mapped target trajectory associated with the segment of road, the mapped target trajectory corresponding to a trajectory followed by the host vehicle when navigating the segment of road; and determine, based on analysis of the road geometry model, one or more road orientation parameter values for the identified at least one point, as taught by Zeng, to provide generating data related to the position and orientation of the vehicle in relation to the lane. (Zeng at ¶[0029])
The combination of Averilla and Zeng does not explicitly teach wherein the road geometry model includes a three-dimensional representation of a road surface associated with the segment of road; and based on the one or more road orientation parameter values and one or more operational characteristics of the host vehicle, generate an output for causing one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle. However, Sattar discloses a vehicle land detection system and teaches wherein the road geometry model includes a three-dimensional representation of a road surface associated with the segment of road (see at least ¶[0024]-[0025] regarding a 3D model recreating the environment); and based on the one or more road orientation parameter values and one or more operational characteristics of the host vehicle, generate an output for causing one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle (see at least ¶[0024]-[0025] regarding based on the position of the vehicle lane in the current image, the orientation of the camera 120, and the geolocation information for vehicle 100, system 110 may prompt adjustments to the vehicle 100 heading such that the vehicle remains safely within the confines of the lane on the current road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the road geometry model includes a three-dimensional representation of a road surface associated with the segment of road; analyze the road geometry model to determine, for at least one point along a mapped target trajectory associated with the segment of road, one or more road orientation parameter values; and based on the one or more road orientation parameter values and one or more operational characteristics of the host vehicle, generate an output for causing one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle, as taught by Sattar, to provide adjustments to the vehicle so that the vehicle remains safely within the confines of the lane on the current road. (Sattar at ¶[0025])
Regarding claim 35, Averilla teaches wherein the road geometry model is a three-dimensional road geometry model (see at least ¶[0024]-[0025] regarding 3D model and geometric relationship).
Regarding claim 37, Averilla teaches wherein the road geometry model includes a three-dimensional representation of one or more lane markings associated with the segment of road (see at least ¶[0047] regarding 3D model and lane marker projection).
Regarding claim 40, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the host vehicle include a lateral position of the host vehicle within a lane of travel (see at least ¶[0139]-[0143], [0188] and [0203] regarding a lateral tracking controller adjusting position depending on feedback received by the controller).
Regarding claim 41, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the host vehicle include a lateral position of the host vehicle relative to a mapped target trajectory associated with a lane of travel (see at least ¶[0139]-[0143], [0188] and [0203] regarding operational metric associated with a travel segment may denote a lateral clearance between the AV and an object when traveling along the travel segment).
Regarding claim 43, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the host vehicle include a current speed of the host vehicle (see at least ¶[0091], [0128], [0138]-[0139] and [0141] regarding the controller receiving data desired outputs of a velocity as well as measured velocity).
Regarding claim 44, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more operational characteristics of the host vehicle include a current heading direction of the host vehicle (see at least ¶[0090], [0128], [0138]-[0139] and [0142]-[0143] regarding the controller receiving data desired outputs of a velocity, e.g., a speed and a heading, as well as measured velocity (i.e., which includes heading) and using steering control to reach a desired output).
Regarding claim 45, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change in lateral position of the host vehicle within a lane of travel (see at least ¶[0139]-[0143], [0188] and [0203] regarding a lateral tracking controller adjusting position depending on feedback received by the controller).
Regarding claim 46, Averilla teaches wherein the change in lateral position of the host vehicle is made in response to a representation in the road geometry model of a curve along the segment of road (see at least ¶[0150], [0166], [0200] and [0209] regarding the geometric model generator associates a feature with a drivable area within the environment. The feature may be an elevation or curve in the road segment. A command is transmitted to a throttle or a brake of the AV responsive to the extracting of the annotated polygon; additionally, see at least ¶[0139]-[0143], [0188] and [0203] regarding a lateral tracking controller adjusting position depending on feedback received by the controller).
Regarding claim 47, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change in lateral position of the host vehicle relative to a mapped target trajectory (see at least ¶[0118] and [0128] regarding the control module receiving the data representing the trajectory and the data representing the AV position and operates the control functions (e.g., steering, throttling, braking, ignition) of the AV in a manner that will cause the AV to travel the trajectory; additionally, see at least ¶[0142] regarding a lateral tracking controller which instructs steering controller to adjust steering depending on feedback received by the controller).
Regarding claim 48, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change in speed of the host vehicle (see at least ¶[0023]-[0025], [0128] and [0141] regarding navigating of the vehicle includes transmitting a command to a throttle or a brake (i.e., resulting in speed change) of the vehicle responsive to the extracting of the annotated geometric model).
Regarding claim 49, Averilla teaches wherein the change in speed of the host vehicle is made in response to a representation in the road geometry model of an incline or decline along the segment of road (see at least ¶[0023]-[0025], [0128] and [0141] regarding navigating of the vehicle includes transmitting a command to a throttle or a brake (i.e., resulting in speed change) of the vehicle responsive to the extracting of the annotated geometric model; also, see at least ¶[0139]-[0140] regarding encountering a disturbance, such as a hill, and adjustments that are performed based on differences in measured speed and desired speed).
Regarding claim 50, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change in throttle level associated with the host vehicle (see at least ¶[0023]-[0025], [0128] and [0141] regarding navigating of the vehicle includes transmitting a command to a throttle or a brake of the vehicle responsive to the extracting of the annotated geometric model).
Regarding claim 51, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change in braking level associated with the host vehicle (see at least ¶[0023]-[0025], [0128] and [0141] regarding navigating of the vehicle includes transmitting a command to a throttle or a brake of the vehicle responsive to the extracting of the annotated geometric model).
Regarding claim 52, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change in heading direction associated with the host vehicle (see at least ¶[0090], [0128], [0138]-[0139] and [0142]-[0143] regarding the controller receiving data desired outputs of a velocity, e.g., a speed and a heading, as well as measured velocity (i.e., which includes heading) and using steering control to reach a desired output).
Regarding claim 55, Averilla teaches wherein the output includes a plurality of points associated with the road geometry model (see at least ¶[0130]-[0131] regarding path planning).
Regarding claim 86, Averilla teaches wherein the at least one point is represented by real-world coordinates (see at least ¶[0155], [0165] and [0203] regarding the plurality of features is associated with the spatiotemporal location and the spatiotemporal location includes GNSS coordinates).
Regarding claim 87, Averilla teaches wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change in lateral position of the host vehicle within a lane of travel (see at least ¶[0139]-[0143], [0188] and [0203] regarding a lateral tracking controller adjusting position depending on feedback received by the controller).
Regarding claim 88, Averilla teaches wherein the change in lateral position of the host vehicle is made in response to a representation in the road geometry model of a curve along the segment of road (see at least ¶[0150], [0166], [0200] and [0209] regarding the geometric model generator associates a feature with a drivable area within the environment. The feature may be an elevation or curve in the road segment. A command is transmitted to a throttle or a brake of the AV responsive to the extracting of the annotated polygon; additionally, see at least ¶[0139]-[0143], [0188] and [0203] regarding a lateral tracking controller adjusting position depending on feedback received by the controller).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averilla (US 20200132477 A1) in view of Zeng (US 20100191461 A1) in view of Sattar et al. (US 20190073542 A1), as applied to claim 34 above, and in further view of Jung et al. (US 20180131924 A1).
Regarding claim 38, the combination Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein the road geometry model includes a three-dimensional representation of one or more road edges associated with the segment of road. However, Jung discloses a method and apparatus for generating three-dimensional road models and teaches wherein the road geometry model includes a three-dimensional representation of one or more road edges associated with the segment of road (see at least ¶[0010], [0021], [0045] and [0053]-[0054] regarding a 3D road model including road shape information, lane marking and depth information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the road geometry model includes a three-dimensional representation of one or more road edges associated with the segment of road, as taught by Jung, to provide accurate route information to a user. (Jung at ¶[0041])
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averilla (US 20200132477 A1) in view of Zeng (US 20100191461 A1) in view of Sattar et al. (US 20190073542 A1), as applied to claim 34 above, and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20100098295 A1).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis of the plurality of images used to generate the road geometry model includes a structure in motion analysis. However, Zhang discloses clear path detection through road modeling and teaches wherein the analysis of the plurality of images used to generate the road geometry model includes a structure in motion analysis (see at least ¶[0052], [0055], [0063] and [0094] regarding analyzing movement of the interest points and estimating three dimensional coordinates of the interest points).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the analysis of the plurality of images used to generate the road geometry model includes a structure in motion analysis, as taught by Zhang, to provide determining a clear path in front of the host vehicle. (Zhang at ¶[0063])
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averilla (US 20200132477 A1) in view of Zeng (US 20100191461 A1) in view of Sattar et al. (US 20190073542 A1), as applied to claim 41 above, and in further view of Shashua et al. (US 20170010618 A1).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein the mapped target trajectory is represented as a three-dimensional spline. However, Shashua discloses a self-aware system for adaptive navigation and teaches wherein the mapped target trajectory is represented as a three-dimensional spline (see at least ¶[0017] and [0380] regarding the target trajectory may be represented by a three-dimensional spline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the mapped target trajectory is represented as a three-dimensional spline, as taught by Shashua, to provide guiding the vehicles navigation by taking into account an amount of lane offset from a lane. (Shashua at ¶[0380])
Claim(s) 53-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averilla (US 20200132477 A1) in view of Zeng (US 20100191461 A1) in view of Sattar et al. (US 20190073542 A1), as applied to claim 34 above, and in further view of Jeon et al. (US 20180290643 A1).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change of gears. However, Jeon discloses a shift control apparatus and method for a vehicle and teaches wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change of gears (see abstract and at least ¶[0010] and [0019]-[0020] regarding gear shifts can be controlled by detecting a slope ahead based on road information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the one or more navigational actions to be taken by the host vehicle include a change of gears, as taught by Jeon, to provide overcoming a lack of driving torque and reducing the frequency of kick downs. (Jeon at ¶[0020])
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein the change of gears is made in response to a representation in the road geometry model of an incline or decline along the segment of road. However, Jeon discloses a shift control apparatus and method for a vehicle and teaches wherein the change of gears is made in response to a representation in the road geometry model of an incline or decline along the segment of road (see abstract and at least ¶[0010] and [0019]-[0020] regarding gear shifts can be controlled by detecting a slope ahead based on road information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the change of gears is made in response to a representation in the road geometry model of an incline or decline along the segment of road, as taught by Jeon, to provide overcoming a lack of driving torque and reducing the frequency of kick downs. (Jeon at ¶[0020])
Claim(s) 56, 58-59 and 85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averilla (US 20200132477 A1) in view of Zeng (US 20100191461 A1) in view of Sattar et al. (US 20190073542 A1), as applied to claims 34, 55 and 62 above, and in further view of Pirwani (US 20130328863 A1).
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of points includes a three-dimensional point location associated with the road geometry model. However, Pirwani discloses computing plausible road surfaces in 3D from 2D geometry and teaches wherein each of the plurality of points includes a three-dimensional point location associated with the road geometry model (see at least ¶[0022], [0073] and [0077] regarding a plurality of sampled points yielding a surface and producing a plausible 3D description of a road surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein each of the plurality of points includes a three-dimensional point location associated with the road geometry model, as taught by Pirwani, to provide facilitating realistic and plausible rendering of the road elements in 3D. (Pirwani at ¶[0073])
Regarding claim 58, the combination of Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include an average pitch angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point. However, Pirwani discloses computing plausible road surfaces in 3D from 2D geometry and teaches wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include an average pitch angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point (see at least ¶[0007], [0057], [0077], [0083] and [0089] regarding pitch of a road segment at a particular point can be determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include an average pitch angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point, as taught by Pirwani, to provide pitch, along with curve information and a calculated bank of the road, to provide a plausible 3D road surface. (Pirwani at ¶[0057])
Regarding claim 59, the combination of Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include an average roll angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point. However, Pirwani discloses computing plausible road surfaces in 3D from 2D geometry and teaches wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include an average roll angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point (see at least ¶[0007], [0077], [0085] and [0103] regarding roll angle for a road segment which is computed as a function of curvature and speed limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include an average roll angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point, as taught by Pirwani, to provide pitch, along with curve information and a calculated bank of the road, to provide a plausible 3D road surface. (Pirwani at ¶[0057])
Regarding claim 85, the combination of Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include at least one of: an average pitch angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point, an average roll angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point, or an average radius of curvature of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point. However, Pirwani discloses computing plausible road surfaces in 3D from 2D geometry and teaches wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include at least one of: an average pitch angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point, an average roll angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point, or an average radius of curvature of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point (see at least ¶[0007], [0057], [0077], [0083] and [0089] regarding pitch of a road segment at a particular point can be determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include at least one of: an average pitch angle of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point, as taught by Pirwani, to provide pitch, along with curve information and a calculated bank of the road, to provide a plausible 3D road surface. (Pirwani at ¶[0057])
Claim(s) 60-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averilla (US 20200132477 A1) in view of Zeng (US 20100191461 A1) in view of Sattar et al. (US 20190073542 A1), as applied to claim 34 above, and in further view of Yabe (US 20150057922 A1).
Regarding claim 60, the combination of Averilla, Zeng and Sattar does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include an average radius of curvature of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point. However, Yabe discloses a curved-section-information supplying apparatus and teaches wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include an average radius of curvature of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point (see at least ¶[0088] regarding the radius of curvature being an average value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques for automatic annotation of environmental features in a map during navigation of a vehicle of Averilla as modified by Zeng as modified by Sattar to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the one or more road orientation parameter values include an average radius of curvature of the segment of road at a particular location associated with the at least one point, as taught by Yabe, to provide providing information of a radius of curvature (or a curvature) at each traveling position in a section, the information being useful for speed control, anti-skid control, and so on for a vehicle. (Yabe at ¶[0009])
Regarding claim 61, Averilla teaches wherein the at least one point is represented by real-world coordinates (see at least ¶[0155], [0165] and [0203] regarding the plurality of features is associated with the spatiotemporal location and the spatiotemporal location includes GNSS coordinates).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666