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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and considered by examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Figs. 2-4)” [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determining an intended path of the vehicle; identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on at least one of: the interest data and the intended path of the vehicle; and performing a second measurement of the region of interest using a second vehicle sensor. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as interest data, path data, and other sensor data could determine an intended path of the vehicle; identify the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on at least one of: the interest data and the intended path of the vehicle; and perform a second measurement of the region of interest using a second vehicle sensor. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving interest data using a first vehicle sensor, wherein the interest data includes a first measurement; a first vehicle sensor; a second vehicle sensor; wherein the first vehicle sensor is a perception sensor including at least one of: a radar sensor and a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor; wherein the second vehicle sensor is a camera; and performing a data processing task based at least in part on the second measurement; and a vehicle controller in electrical communication with the first vehicle sensor and the second vehicle sensor. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (interest data, path data, and sensor data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensors are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) of a vehicle controller in electrical communication with the first vehicle sensor and the second vehicle sensor is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood et al (US 20210325902 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Wood discloses a method for identifying a region of interest in an environment surrounding a vehicle (see at least [abstract]), the method comprising: receiving interest data using a first vehicle sensor (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]), wherein the interest data includes a first measurement (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]); determining an intended path of the vehicle (see at least [0022], [0026], [0042-0044], [0049], [0051-0053], [0055-0056], and [claims 22 and 26]); identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on at least one of: the interest data and the intended path of the vehicle (see at least [0019-0020], [0022], [0025-0032], [0038], [0042-0044], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0055-0060]); and performing a second measurement of the region of interest using a second vehicle sensor (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 2, Wood discloses wherein receiving interest data further comprises: performing the first measurement of the environment surrounding the vehicle with the first vehicle sensor (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]), wherein the first vehicle sensor includes at least one of: a radar sensor and a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 11, it is a system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 12, Wood discloses wherein the first vehicle sensor includes a perception sensor (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]), and wherein to receive interest data using the first vehicle sensor, the vehicle controller is further programmed to: perform a first measurement using the perception sensor (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]), wherein the interest data is the first measurement (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 18, Wood discloses a method for identifying a region of interest in an environment surrounding a vehicle (see at least [abstract]), the method comprising: performing a first measurement of the environment surrounding the vehicle using a first vehicle sensor (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]), wherein the first vehicle sensor is a perception sensor including at least one of: a radar sensor and a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]); identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on the first measurement see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]); performing a second measurement of the region of interest using a second vehicle sensor see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]), wherein the second vehicle sensor is a camera see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]); and performing a data processing task based at least in part on the second measurement see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]).
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.
Claims 3, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al (US 20220185324) in view of Imai et al (US 20250010823 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Wood discloses wherein identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle further comprises: identifying an object of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on the first measurement (see at least [0019-0020], [0022-0025], [0028-0029], [0038], [0041-0043], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]); determining a predicted path of the object of interest based at least in part on the first measurement (see at least [0041-0042]); and identifying the region of interest to include the object of interest in response to determining that the probability of collision is greater than or equal to a predetermined collision probability threshold (see at least [0019-0022], [0026-0033], [0047-0053], and [0060]).
Wood do not specifically disclose calculating a time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle based at least in part on the predicted path of the object of interest; determining a probability of collision based at least in part on the predicted path of the object of interest, an uncertainty of the predicted path of the object of interest, and the time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle.
Imai teaches calculating a time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle based at least in part on the predicted path of the object of interest (see at least [0039], “…calculating a collision time TTC (Time To Collision) which is the time required for the ego vehicle to collide with an obstacle, based on the result of detection by the obstacle detection unit 1 and the result of estimation by the course estimation unit 2. For example, the collision time computation unit 32 can estimate the course of the obstacle from the location, moving direction, and moving speed of the obstacle included in the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detection unit 1. The collision time computation unit 32 estimates as the collision location of the ego vehicle and the obstacle, a location where the estimated course of the obstacle traverses the course of the ego vehicle estimated by the course estimation unit 2…”); determining a probability of collision based at least in part on the predicted path of the object of interest (see at least [0007], [0033-0034], [0043], [0059-0060], [0107], and [0112-0113], “…a collision assessment unit which assesses whether or not there is a possibility that the ego vehicle will collide with the obstacle…”), an uncertainty of the predicted path of the object of interest, and the time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle (see at least [0039] and [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Imai of calculating a time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle based at least in part on the predicted path of the object of interest; determining a probability of collision based at least in part on the predicted path of the object of interest, an uncertainty of the predicted path of the object of interest, and the time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle. This would be done to develop a collision avoidance technology which avoids collision with a detected obstacle or reducing damage at the time of the collision (see Imai para 0002).
With respect to claim 13, it is a system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 3. As such, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 3 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 19, Wood discloses wherein identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle further comprises: identifying an object of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on the first measurement (see at least [0019-0020], [0022-0025], [0028-0029], [0038], [0041-0043], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]); determining a predicted path of the object of interest based at least in part on the first measurement (see at least [0041-0042]); and identifying the region of interest to include the object of interest in response to determining that the probability of collision is greater than or equal to a predetermined collision probability threshold (see at least [0019-0022], [0026-0033], [0047-0053], and [0060]).
Wood do not specifically disclose calculating a time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle based at least in part on the predicted path of the object of interest; determining a probability of collision based at least in part on an uncertainty of the predicted path of the object of interest and the time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle.
Imai teaches calculating a time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle based at least in part on the predicted path of the object of interest (see at least [0039], “…calculating a collision time TTC (Time To Collision) which is the time required for the ego vehicle to collide with an obstacle, based on the result of detection by the obstacle detection unit 1 and the result of estimation by the course estimation unit 2. For example, the collision time computation unit 32 can estimate the course of the obstacle from the location, moving direction, and moving speed of the obstacle included in the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detection unit 1. The collision time computation unit 32 estimates as the collision location of the ego vehicle and the obstacle, a location where the estimated course of the obstacle traverses the course of the ego vehicle estimated by the course estimation unit 2…”); determining a probability of collision based at least in part on an uncertainty of the predicted path of the object of interest and the time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle (see at least [0007], [0033-0034], [0043], [0059-0060], [0107], and [0112-0113], “…a collision assessment unit which assesses whether or not there is a possibility that the ego vehicle will collide with the obstacle…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Imai of calculating a time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle based at least in part on the predicted path of the object of interest; determining a probability of collision based at least in part on an uncertainty of the predicted path of the object of interest and the time-to-collision of the object of interest with the vehicle. This would be done to develop a collision avoidance technology which avoids collision with a detected obstacle or reducing damage at the time of the collision (see Imai para 0002).
Claims 4-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al (US 20220185324) in view of Fridman (US 20180024568 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Wood discloses wherein determining the intended path of the vehicle further comprises: receiving one or more occupant inputs from an occupant of the vehicle using one or more vehicle input devices (see at least [0046], “In another example, a human driver can control the human-machine interface system 134 (e.g., via a turn signal lever) to activate a left turn signal light of the vehicle 103.”); performing one or more vehicle dynamics measurements with one or more vehicle dynamics sensors (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]); and determining the intended path of the vehicle based at least in part on at least one of: the one or more occupant inputs, the one or more vehicle dynamics measurements, and the location of the vehicle (see at least [0022], [0026], [0042-0044], [0049], [0051-0053], [0055-0056], and [claims 22 and 26]).
Wood do not specifically disclose determining a location of the vehicle using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS).
Fridman teaches determining a location of the vehicle using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) (see at least [0086-0087], [0114], [0213], and [0321]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fridman of determining a location of the vehicle using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS). This would be done to take into account a variety of factors and make appropriate decisions based on those factors to safely and accurately reach an intended destination by an autonomous vehicle (see Fridman para 0003).
With respect to claim 5, Wood discloses wherein identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle further comprises: identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle (see at least [0019-0020], [0022], [0025-0032], [0038], [0042-0044], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0055-0060]), wherein the region of interest includes at least a portion of the intended path of the vehicle (see at least [0019-0022], [0025-0033], [0038], [0042-0044], [0047-0053], and [0055-0060]).
With respect to claim 6, Wood discloses wherein the first measurement is the one or more region cues (see at least [0019], [0026-0032] and [0051-0060]).
Wood do not specifically disclose receiving one or more region cues from a remote server system.
Fridman teaches receiving one or more region cues from a remote server system (see at least [0013], [0108], [0268-0278], [0282], [0292-0293], [0302-0305], and [0365-0371]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fridman of receiving one or more region cues from a remote server system. This would be done to take into account a variety of factors and make appropriate decisions based on those factors to safely and accurately reach an intended destination by an autonomous vehicle (see Fridman para 0003).
With respect to claim 7, Wood discloses wherein identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle further comprises: identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on the one or more region cues (see at least [0019], [0026-0032] and [0051-0060]).
Wood do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more region cues includes a location of a missing map element from the remote server system.
Fridman teaches wherein the one or more region cues includes a location of a missing map element from the remote server system (see at least [0013], [0108], [0168], [0268-0278], [0282], [0292-0293], [0302-0305], and [0365-0371]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fridman wherein the one or more region cues includes a location of a missing map element from the remote server system. This would be done to consider a variety of factors and make appropriate decisions based on those factors to safely and accurately reach an intended destination by an autonomous vehicle (see Fridman para 0003).
With respect to claim 8, Wood discloses wherein identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle further comprises: identifying the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on the one or more region cues (see at least [0019], [0026-0032] and [0051-0060]).
Wood do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more region cues includes at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter, wherein the at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter is determined by the remote server system using crowdsourcing.
Fridman teaches wherein the one or more region cues includes at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter (see at least [0207], [0240], [0254], [0277], [0282], and [0391]), wherein the at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter is determined by the remote server system using crowdsourcing (see at least [0207], [0240], [0254], [0277], [0282], and [0391]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fridman wherein the one or more region cues includes at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter, wherein the at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter is determined by the remote server system using crowdsourcing. This would be done to consider a variety of factors and make appropriate decisions based on those factors to safely and accurately reach an intended destination by an autonomous vehicle (see Fridman para 0003).
With respect to claim 14, Wood discloses wherein the first vehicle sensor is a vehicle communication system (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]); wherein the interest data is the one or more region cues (see at least [0019], [0026-0032] and [0051-0060]).
Wood do not specifically disclose wherein to receive interest data using the first vehicle sensor, the vehicle controller is further programmed to: receive one or more region cues from a remote server system using the vehicle communication system and transmit at least one vehicle region of interest parameter to the remote server system using the vehicle communication system for crowdsourcing by the remote server system.
Fridman teaches wherein to receive interest data using the first vehicle sensor, the vehicle controller is further programmed to: receive one or more region cues from a remote server system using the vehicle communication system (see at least [0013], [0108], [0268-0278], [0282], [0292-0293], [0302-0305], and [0365-0371]), and transmit at least one vehicle region of interest parameter to the remote server system using the vehicle communication system for crowdsourcing by the remote server system (see at least [0013], [0108], [0268-0278], [0282], [0292-0293], [0302-0305], and [0365-0371]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fridman wherein to receive interest data using the first vehicle sensor, the vehicle controller is further programmed to: receive one or more region cues from a remote server system using the vehicle communication system and transmit at least one vehicle region of interest parameter to the remote server system using the vehicle communication system for crowdsourcing by the remote server system. This would be done to consider a variety of factors and make appropriate decisions based on those factors to safely and accurately reach an intended destination by an autonomous vehicle (see Fridman para 0003).
With respect to claim 15, Wood discloses wherein to identify the region of interest, the vehicle controller is further programmed to: identify the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on the one or more region cues (see at least [0019], [0026-0032] and [0051-0060]), and identify the region of interest in the environment surrounding the vehicle based at least in part on the one or more region cues (see at least [0019], [0026-0032] and [0051-0060]).
Wood do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more region cues includes a location of a missing map element from the remote server system; wherein the one or more region cues includes at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter, wherein the at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter is determined by the remote server system using crowdsourcing.
Fridman teaches wherein the one or more region cues includes a location of a missing map element from the remote server system (see at least [0207], [0240], [0254], [0277], [0282], and [0391]); wherein the one or more region cues includes at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter (see at least [0207], [0240], [0254], [0277], [0282], and [0391]), wherein the at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter is determined by the remote server system using crowdsourcing (see at least [0207], [0240], [0254], [0277], [0282], and [0391]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fridman wherein the one or more region cues includes a location of a missing map element from the remote server system; wherein the one or more region cues includes at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter, wherein the at least one crowdsourced region of interest parameter is determined by the remote server system using crowdsourcing. This would be done to consider a variety of factors and make appropriate decisions based on those factors to safely and accurately reach an intended destination by an autonomous vehicle (see Fridman para 0003).
Claims 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al (US 20220185324 A1) in view of Bradley et al (US 20220055549 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Wood discloses wherein performing the second measurement of the region of interest using the second vehicle sensor further comprises: capturing a first image of the environment surrounding the vehicle using the second vehicle sensor (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]), wherein the first image includes at least the region of interest (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]), and wherein the second vehicle sensor is a camera (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]).
Wood do not specifically disclose wherein the first image has a first image resolution; determining a priority level of the region of interest, wherein the priority level includes at least one of: a high priority level and a low priority level; caching the first image in a non-transitory memory in response to determining that the priority level is the low priority level; and generating a second image of the environment surrounding the vehicle in response to determining that the priority level is the high priority level.
Bradley teaches wherein the first image has a first image resolution (see at least [0102-0104]); determining a priority level of the region of interest (see at least [0023-0025], [0028], [0037-0042], [0047], [0052], [0070-0071], [0091-0094], [0112-0120], and [0172-0173]), wherein the priority level includes at least one of: a high priority level and a low priority level (see at least [0023-0025], [0028], [0037-0042], [0047], [0052], [0070-0071], [0091-0094], [0112-0120], and [0172-0173]); caching the first image in a non-transitory memory in response to determining that the priority level is the low priority level (see at least [0023-0025], [0028], [0037-0042], [0047], [0052], [0070-0071], [0091-0094], [0112-0120], and [0172-0173]); and generating a second image of the environment surrounding the vehicle in response to determining that the priority level is the high priority level (see at least [0023-0025], [0028], [0037-0042], [0047], [0052], [0070-0071], [0091-0094], [0112-0120], and [0172-0173]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Bradley wherein the first image has a first image resolution; determining a priority level of the region of interest, wherein the priority level includes at least one of: a high priority level and a low priority level; caching the first image in a non-transitory memory in response to determining that the priority level is the low priority level; and generating a second image of the environment surrounding the vehicle in response to determining that the priority level is the high priority level. This would be done so that the autonomous vehicle can comprehend the surrounding of the vehicle and identify appropriate motion path(s) through surrounding environment (see Bradly para 0003).
With respect to claim 10, Wood discloses wherein generating the second image of the environment surrounding the vehicle further comprises: generating the second image of the environment surrounding the vehicle (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]), wherein the second image includes the region of interest (see at least [0019-0020], [0025-0032], [0038], [0047], [0049-0053], and [0056-0060]).
However, Wood do not specifically disclose wherein the second image of the environment is upscaled using a machine learning super resolution algorithm.
Bradley teaches wherein the second image of the environment is upscaled using a machine learning super resolution algorithm (see at least [0023-0025], [0028-0029], [0037-0042], [0047], [0052], [0070-0071], [0091-0094], [0112-0120], and [0146-0160]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Bradley wherein the second image of the environment is upscaled using a machine learning super resolution algorithm. This would be done so that the autonomous vehicle can comprehend the surrounding of the vehicle and identify appropriate motion path(s) through surrounding environment (see Bradly para 0003).
With respect to claim 16, it is a system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 9. As such, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 9 and is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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 on (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 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 unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667