DETAILED ACTION
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s response received 1/13/26 has been accepted and entered. In response to a restriction requirement, applicant elected, without traverse, in Group I, Species I corresponding to FIG. 7 and claim 1. Accordingly, Species II (related to claim 4); Species III (related to claims 5-6), Species IV (related to claims 7-9) and Species V (related to claim 10) are non-elected. Accordingly, claims 4-10 are withdrawn from consideration. In addition, with respect to Group II, Applicant elected, without traverse, Species I (related to claim 1). Accordingly, claims related to Species II, disclosed in FIG. 10 are withdrawn from consideration. Although Applicant asserts claims 1 and 4-12 are drawn to elected species I, as noted in the restriction dated 11/26/25, species II, recited in claim 12 is mutually exclusive with elected species I, i.e., “mutually exclusive methods of step s704, FIG. 3” (Restriction, p. 5). Accordingly, claim 12 is also withdrawn as corresponding to a withdrawn species. See MPEP 821 (“All claims that the examiner finds are not directed to the elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). See also MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the pending claims, Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Ohyama, Applicant asserts Ohyama fails to disclose “the controller performs the update control based on the matching degree being lower than a first matching degree, wherein the first matching degree is a reference value of the matching degree based on sensing data obtained by the three-dimensional sensor” (emphasis original). Applicant asserts this is because “Ohyama fails to disclose how the predetermined score is derived” (Amend. 9). However, claim 1 does not require a disclosure of a derivation of a reference value, merely that there is a reference value used that is based on three-dimensional sensor data. See MPEP § 2145, VI (“Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)”); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988) (Various limitations on which appellant relied were not stated in the claims; the specification did not provide evidence indicating these limitations must be read into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms.). Furthermore, Reitz is not cited to disclose an indirect detector (a scintillator in combination with a photodiode).
Applicant further asserts:
For example, paragraph [0107] of Ohyama discloses that Formula 1 is based on an amount of change from the road shape shown by a three-dimensional map to the present road shape of the road indicated by the second term in Formula 1, and paragraphs [0200] and [0201] of Ohyama disclose that LIDAR is used to detect a three-dimensional shape of a terrain surface of an area around the vehicle, the score determined in Formula 1 would necessarily be based on sensing data obtained by a three- dimensional sensor used to determine the road shape.
However, Formula 1 disclosed in paragraph [0104] of Ohyama is used to compute a score that is then used in comparison with the predetermined score to determine whether it is necessary to update the three-dimensional map. Furthermore, paragraph [0103] of Ohyama discloses that the first determiner 110 computes a score for each of the plurality of areas and may determine that it is necessary to update the three- dimensional map where the score thus computed exceeds a predetermined score. Thus, in Ohyama, Formula 1 is not used to compute the predetermined score, but the completed score compared with the predetermined score. Accordingly, Ohyama fails to disclose, in these sections (i.e., paragraphs [0104], [0107], [0200], [0201]) or in any other sections of Ohyama's disclosure, how the predetermined score is derived.
Accordingly, Ohyama clearly does not teach or suggest, inter alia, "wherein the first matching degree is a reference value of the matching degree based on sensing data obtained by the three-dimensional sensor," as recited by amended claim 1 (emphasis added).
Therefore, in view of the above deficiencies, Ohyama clearly fails to teach or suggest every element as recited by amended independent claim 1. At least for the aforementioned reasons, claim 1 is not anticipated by Ohyama under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1).
(Amend. 9-10).
It is important to note that the term “based on” is an extremely broad term under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Under the plain ordinary meaning of the term, “based on” merely requires only a minimal causal, logical thematic direct or indirect nexus between two things. A mere link in the chain of causality is sufficient to be considered basis for a subsequent event.1
Here, 3D sensor data is used to determine both if and by how much an external environment has changed, i.e., by comparing the vehicle 3D sensor (LIDAR) data with 3D map data (i.e., comparing LIDAR coordinate points to map coordinate points ¶ 169-177; 93, 103, 107, 128 detection data indicating a road shape as detected by the first detector 250, 135-136, 200). The amount of change in 3D sensor data relative to 3D map data determines whether a map should be updated (Oh, ¶103 “the first determiner 110 determines, on the basis of . . . an amount of change from the road shape shown by the three-dimensional map to the present road shape of the road . . . whether it is necessary to update the three-dimensional map of that area . . . it is necessary to update the three-dimensional map of that one of the plurality of areas where the score thus computed exceeds a predetermined score”). Furthermore, Oh explicitly discloses the predetermined score is based on an update is needed, i.e., the predetermined score is changed for a particular area depending on how many times the 3D sensor data indicated in the past that an update was needed (¶ 192 “the first determiner 110 increases a predetermined score of that one of the plurality of areas where the number of times it has been determined per unit period that updating is needed is not smaller than a first number of times and decreases a predetermined score of that one of the plurality of areas where the number of times it has been determined per unit period that updating is needed is smaller than a second number of times that is not larger than the first number of times. Thus, since the first determiner 110 changes, according to the number of times it was determined in the past whether updating is needed, a threshold score for determining whether it is necessary to update the map, an area with a greater time series variation in the road shape can be updated at a higher frequency. This makes it possible to update the map of the area at a frequency according to the time series variation in the road shape), i.e., 3D sensor data detects and is used to determine the time series variation in road shape, which further determines the predetermined score. Accordingly, Applicants arguments as to this point are unpersuasive.
Specification
The objection to the title of the invention has been withdrawn as a result of the amended title supplied in the 1/13/26 response.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 20190063929 to Ohyama et al. (Oh)
With respect to claim 1, Oh discloses a control device relating to a moving body, the moving body
(200, FIG. 1, 3-4 is the moving body, controller 240, and corresponding descriptions including ¶¶ 127, 134, 164)
including a three-dimensional sensor for three-dimensional recognition of an external environment, and
(i.e., 26 FIG. 1, 26-28, 25 FIG. 2, 250, 280, FIG. 4 and corresponding descriptions, i.e., ¶ 93 LiDAR detects three-dimensional representation of external environment; 200)
being capable of autonomously moving according to a position estimation based on
sensing data obtained by the three-dimensional sensor and
map data three-dimensionally indicating the external environment,
(¶¶ 37-38 automatic driving; 71-74 Each of the plurality of vehicles 200 is for example a vehicle that estimates its own position by performing matching between a road, detected by the detector, on which that vehicle 200 is running and a three-dimensional road shape, detected by the detector, of an area around the road and performs automatic driving or drive assist with use of its own position thus estimated . . . the road shape shown by the three dimensional map . . . in order to secure the safety of running of the vehicle 200 under autonomous control, it is necessary to keep high information freshness of the three-dimensional map retained by the information processing apparatus)
the control device comprising:
a controller that determines whether or not to perform update control of the map data with the sensing data, based on a matching degree between sensing data obtained by the three-dimensional sensor and the map data.
(¶¶ 103-112 For each of the plurality of areas, the first determiner 110 determines, on the basis of at least either an amount of change from the road shape shown by the three-dimensional map to the present road shape of the road or the number of occurrences of a predetermined action of a vehicle 200 having run through that area, whether it is necessary to update the three-dimensional map of that area. Specifically, the first determiner 110 computes a score for each of the plurality of areas on the basis of at least either the amount of change or the number of occurrences. Moreover, the first determiner 110 may determine that it is necessary to update the three-dimensional map of that one of the plurality of areas where the score thus computed exceeds a predetermined score; 210, 220, FIG. 4 and corresponding description; s11, s34, s35, FIG. 9-10; 149 first information processing apparatus acquires, from the second information processing apparatus, information for determining whether it is necessary to update the map and executes steps S11 to S13; 71 plurality of vehicles 200 performs the aforementioned matching, for example, by using an ICP (iterative closest point) algorithm or NDT (normal distributions transform) algorithm; 177-178); 153-156)
("first detection unit 250", "three-dimensional map", "vehicles 200", "first determination unit 110", and "map updating system 1" correspond, respectively, to the "three-dimensional sensor", "map data", "moving body", "control unit", and "control device")
wherein the controller performs the update control based on the matching degree being lower than a first matching degree,
(¶¶ 103-110; 177-178; 71; FIG. 10 and corresponding description)
wherein the first matching degree is a reference value of the matching degree based on sensing data obtained by the three-dimensional sensor; and
(¶¶ 103-110; 177-178; 71-73; 181; 153-156; FIG. 10 and corresponding description)
(3D sensor data is used to determine both if and by how much an external environment has changed, i.e., by comparing the vehicle 3D sensor (LIDAR) data with 3D map data (i.e., comparing LIDAR coordinate points to map coordinate points ¶ 169-177; 93, 103, 107, 128 detection data indicating a road shape as detected by the first detector 250, 135-136, 200). The amount of change in 3D sensor data relative to 3D map data determines whether a map should be updated (Oh, ¶103 “the first determiner 110 determines, on the basis of . . . an amount of change from the road shape shown by the three-dimensional map to the present road shape of the road . . . whether it is necessary to update the three-dimensional map of that area . . . it is necessary to update the three-dimensional map of that one of the plurality of areas where the score thus computed exceeds a predetermined score”). Furthermore, Oh explicitly discloses the predetermined score is based on an update is needed, i.e., the predetermined score is changed for a particular area depending on how many times the 3D sensor data indicated in the past that an update was needed (¶ 192 “the first determiner 110 increases a predetermined score of that one of the plurality of areas where the number of times it has been determined per unit period that updating is needed is not smaller than a first number of times and decreases a predetermined score of that one of the plurality of areas where the number of times it has been determined per unit period that updating is needed is smaller than a second number of times that is not larger than the first number of times. Thus, since the first determiner 110 changes, according to the number of times it was determined in the past whether updating is needed, a threshold score for determining whether it is necessary to update the map, an area with a greater time series variation in the road shape can be updated at a higher frequency. This makes it possible to update the map of the area at a frequency according to the time series variation in the road shape), i.e., 3D sensor data detects and is used to determine the time series variation in road shape, which further determines the predetermined score)
wherein the controller performs movement control of the moving body based on the map data
(i.e., ¶¶ 37-38 automatic driving; 71-74)
With respect to claim 11, Oh discloses wherein the first matching degree changes based on sensing data obtained by the three-dimensional sensor
(3D sensor data is used to determine both if and by how much an external environment has changed, i.e., by comparing the vehicle 3D sensor (LIDAR) data with 3D map data (i.e., comparing LIDAR coordinate points to map coordinate points ¶ 169-177; 93, 103, 107, 128 detection data indicating a road shape as detected by the first detector 250, 135-136, 200). The amount of change in 3D sensor data relative to 3D map data determines whether a map should be updated (Oh, ¶103 “the first determiner 110 determines, on the basis of . . . an amount of change from the road shape shown by the three-dimensional map to the present road shape of the road . . . whether it is necessary to update the three-dimensional map of that area . . . it is necessary to update the three-dimensional map of that one of the plurality of areas where the score thus computed exceeds a predetermined score”). Furthermore, Oh explicitly discloses the predetermined score is based on an update is needed, i.e., the predetermined score is changed for a particular area depending on how many times the 3D sensor data indicated in the past that an update was needed (¶ 192 “the first determiner 110 increases a predetermined score of that one of the plurality of areas where the number of times it has been determined per unit period that updating is needed is not smaller than a first number of times and decreases a predetermined score of that one of the plurality of areas where the number of times it has been determined per unit period that updating is needed is smaller than a second number of times that is not larger than the first number of times. Thus, since the first determiner 110 changes, according to the number of times it was determined in the past whether updating is needed, a threshold score for determining whether it is necessary to update the map, an area with a greater time series variation in the road shape can be updated at a higher frequency. This makes it possible to update the map of the area at a frequency according to the time series variation in the road shape), i.e., 3D sensor data detects and is used to determine the time series variation in road shape, which further determines the predetermined score)
(i.e., Oh uses LiDAR to repeatedly detect environment for map updates, i.e., 26 FIG. 1, 26-28, 25 FIG. 2, 250, 280, FIG. 4 and corresponding descriptions, i.e., ¶ 93 LiDAR detects three-dimensional representation of external environment; 200, i.e., FIG. 5 shows example of history of updates for a particular area based on LiDAR change data; and the first matching degree changes depends on this previous sensing data obtained by the three-dimensional sensor, i.e., ¶¶ 110 increase or decrease the score for a particular area based on the number of times updating was needed, which itself is based on LiDAR change data; ¶¶ 154-155 the predetermined score is what determines if a map update is needed, 191, 192 determiner 110 changes, according to the number of times it was determined in the past whether updating is needed, a threshold score for determining whether it is necessary to update the map, an area with a greater time series variation in the road shape can be updated at a higher frequency. This makes it possible to update the map of the area at a frequency according to the time series variation in the road shape. This makes it possible to update the map of each of the plurality of areas at a frequency appropriate for that area; claims 7-8)
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 KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 See Collins dictionary, definition of “base”, “If you base one thing on another thing, the first thing develops from the second thing”, definition 7, available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/base. Accordingly, if a reference value develops from three-dimensional sensor data, the reference value is based on 3D sensor data.