DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 17 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 20, the claims recite where “data affiliated with images of a location.. include information about: a pose of a camera that produced the image, and at least one of a position of a point on: a lane boundary of a lane of a road in the image, a road boundary of the road, or a landmark in the image, but exclude a depiction of any of the lane boundary, the road boundary, and the landmark”
The specification is silent regarding the data affiliated with the image excluding a depiction of any of the lane boundary, the road boundary, and the landmark. Paragraph 40 of Applicant’s specification specifically states that
[0040] Because: (1) positions, not depictions, of landmarks in an HD map used to control a movement of a vehicle need to be indicated with a high degree of accuracy and (2) images of a location can be produced at a specific production rate, depictions of the landmarks likely can be included in several of the images of the location. However, for an image, of the images of the location, a position of any of a lane boundary of a lane of a road in the image, a road boundary of the road, or another landmark in the image can be represented by a position of a point on the lane boundary, the road boundary, or the other landmark. For example, the position of the point on the lane boundary, the road boundary, or the landmark can be affiliated with a position of a keypoint of an object, in the image, that represents the lane boundary, the road boundary, or the landmark. A keypoint can be a point in an object that has a potential of being repeatedly detected under different imaging conditions. Keypoints in objects can be extracted using, for example, keypoint extraction techniques.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of [0040] is that, in addition to the depiction of the landmarks, keypoints of objects/landmarks can be extracted to also represent the positions of the objects/landmarks. There is no explicit teaching regarding excluding a depiction of the lane boundary, the road boundary and/or the landmark from the data affiliated with the image.
Regarding claims 2-16, 18 and 19, the claims depend on claims 1 and 17 and, therefore, incorporate the new matter of those claims. Therefore, claims 1-16 and 18-19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Peter Nolan, whose telephone number is 571-270-7016. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
The fax number for the organization to which 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Peter D Nolan/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661