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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant has argued that amendments made to the independent claims overcome the currently rendered rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. These arguments are moot, however, as a new grounds of rejection has been identified in a renewed search necessitated by said amendments.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, and 3-20 are presented and have been examined.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsmon (US 2019/0228571) in view of Moriya (US 2009/0326713) in view of LaForge (US 8,510,268).
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsmon in view of Moriya in view of LaForge in view of Ogale (US 2019/0034794).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsmon in view of Moriya.
As per Claim 1:
Atsmon discloses the following limitations:
“A method, comprising: receiving… instructions … to add one or more synthetic objects to one or more locations in a map;… ”
Atsmon Paragraph [0124] which describes Figure 1 discloses generating a modified simulated environment (i.e. a map) by interjecting synthetic objects into a simulated environment.
“, generating synthetic track data… the synthetic track data corresponding to simulated trajectories of the simulated machine and including synthetic sensor data corresponding to the one or more synthetic objects”
Atsmon Paragraph [0137] discloses a simulated vehicle passing along a simulated trajectory producing simulated sensor data corresponding to said trajectory.
“and performing, but the simulated machine, one or more navigation, localization, or control operations based at least on the synthetic track data..”
Atsmon Paragraph [0137] discloses moving an emulated vehicle along a route in accordance with the virtual objects placed arbitrarily in the simulated environment.
“evaluating performance of the one or more navigation, localization, or control operations as performed by the simulated machine; updating control software of an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine based at least on the performance as evaluated, wherein the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine performs one or more navigation, localization, or control operations using the control software as updated”
Atsmon Paragraph [0030] discloses using the system to evaluate performance of autonomous systems. Paragraph [0136] at least discloses updating simulator and control software.
Atsmon does not disclose the following limitations that Moriya teaches:
“via a graphical user interface (GUI), user instructions, the user instructions including one or more first interactive GUI selections to add one or more synthetic objects to one or more locations in a map as depicted on the GUI; and one or more second interactive GUI selections corresponding to one or more routes of a simulated machine, the one or more second interactive GUI selections defining one or more of: the one or more routes, one or more lane elements corresponding to the one or more routes, or one or more waypoints constraining the one or more routes, at least one of the one or more locations of the one or more synthetic objects being along at least one of the one or more routes; …modifying the map to include the one or more synthetic objects …, generating synthetic track data corresponding to the map as modified based at least on the one or more first interactive GUI selections and the one or more second interactive GUI selections”
Moriya Figures 19A-19E suggests a system in which synthetic objects, in this protrusions, are added to objects alongside a route of a robot via inputs from a graphical user interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Atsmon with the modifiability disclosed by Moriya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by allowing for editable map environments for navigation of autonomous systems.
Atsmon in view of Moriya does not teach the following limitations that LaForge teaches:
“generating an edit layer of the map that corresponds to one or more edits of the map as indicated by one or more of: the one or more first interactive GUI selections or the one or more second interactive GUI selections…overlaying the edit layer on a base layer of the map, the base layer corresponding to real-world map data”
LaForge Claim 1 teaches an editing layer for a map. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an editing layer superimposed on a base layer of a map to allow changes to a virtual map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Atsmon in view of Moriya with the editing layer taught by LaForge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing a means of undoing edits conveniently.
With regards to Claim 3, Atsmon in view of Moriya in view of LaForge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the generating the synthetic track data is performed within a simulation environment generated based at least on the modified map.”
Atsmon Paragraph [0124] which describes Figure 1 discloses generating a modified simulated environment (i.e. a map) by interjecting synthetic objects into a simulated environment.
With regards to Claim 6, Atsmon in view of Moriya in view of LaForge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the modifying of the map includes one or more of: adding respective point cloud representations corresponding to the one or more synthetic objects to point cloud data corresponding to the map; or updating landmark map data corresponding to the map to include respective location information of the one or more synthetic objects.”
Atsmon Paragraph [0084] discloses inserting synthetic objects into positions within a virtual simulated environment.
As per Claim 7:
Atsmon discloses the following limitations:
“A processor comprising: processing circuitry to cause performance of operations comprising: generating a modified map based at least on including the one or more synthetic objects at the one or more locations … generating a simulated environment using the modified map; generating, based at least on the simulated trajectory of a simulated machine within the simulation environment as at least partially indicated by the travel-path information, synthetic track data corresponding to the simulated trajectory and including synthetic sensor data corresponding to the one or more synthetic objects; and performing one or more operations based at least on the synthetic track data, the one or more operations including updating control software of a machine based at least on performance of the simulated machine with respect to the simulated trajectory, wherein the machine performs one or more navigation, localization, or control operations using the control software as updated.
Atsmon Paragraph [0124] which describes Figure 1 discloses generating a modified simulated environment (i.e. a map) by interjecting synthetic objects into a simulated environment. Paragraph [0137] discloses a simulated vehicle passing along a simulated trajectory producing simulated sensor data corresponding to said trajectory. Paragraph [0137] discloses moving an emulated vehicle along a route in accordance with the virtual objects placed arbitrarily in the simulated environment. Paragraph [0030] discloses using the system to evaluate performance of autonomous systems. Paragraph [0136] at least discloses updating simulator and control software.
Atsmon does not disclose the following limitations that Moriya suggests:
“receiving interactive graphical user interface (GUI) user instructions for editing a map by adding one or more synthetic objects to one or more locations in the map as depicted on the GUI and for defining travel-path information for a simulate machine…”
Moriya Figure 19 discloses generating a modified map including synthetic objects based on user instructions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Atsmon with the modifiability disclosed by Moriya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by allowing for editable map environments for navigation of autonomous systems.
Atsmon in view of Moriya does not teach the following limitations that LaForge teaches:
“generating a modified map based at least on combining the edit layer with a base layer of the map, the base layer corresponding to real-world map data and being unchanged in relation to the interactive GUI user instructions”
LaForge Claim 1 teaches an editing layer for a map. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an editing layer superimposed on a base layer of a map to allow changes to a virtual map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Atsmon in view of Moriya with the editing layer taught by LaForge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing a means of undoing edits conveniently.
With regards to Claim 8, Atsmon in view of Finocchio discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the user instructions further define one or more of: the simulated trajectory; one or more lane elements corresponding to the simulated trajectory; or one or more waypoints constraining the simulated trajectory.”
Atsmon Paragraph [0137] discloses instructions to move a simulated vehicle along a simulated trajectory. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to have user instructions defining simulation parameters.
With regards to Claim 9, Atsmon in view of Finocchio discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the operations further comprise evaluating performance of the one or more navigation, localization, or control operations as performed by the simulated machine”
Atsmon Paragraphs [0088]-[0089] discloses evaluating performance of an autonomous driving system based on the simulation.
With regards to Claim 10, Atsmon in view of Finocchio discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the synthetic track data includes simulated sensor data generated using the simulated machine.”
Atsmon Paragraph [0137] discloses a simulated vehicle passing along a simulated trajectory producing simulated sensor data corresponding to said trajectory.
With regards to Claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 14:
Atsmon disclose the following limitations:
“a system comprising: one or more processing units to perform operations comprising: generating… a modified map based at least on including in the map the one or more synthetic objects at the one or more locations within the map; generating synthetic track data using the modified map, the synthetic track data corresponding to a particular simulated trajectory for the simulated machine and including synthetic sensor data corresponding to the one or more synthetic objects in the modified map; and performing, by the simulated machine, one or more navigation, localization, or control operations based at least on the synthetic track data, wherein an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine performs one or more navigation, localization, or control operations based at least on an evaluated performance of the one or more navigation, localization, or control operations as performed by the simulated.”
Atsmon Paragraph [0124] which describes Figure 1 discloses generating a modified simulated environment (i.e. a map) by interjecting synthetic objects into a simulated environment. Paragraph [0137] discloses a simulated vehicle passing along a simulated trajectory producing simulated sensor data corresponding to said trajectory. Paragraph [0137] discloses moving an emulated vehicle along a route in accordance with the virtual objects placed arbitrarily in the simulated environment. Paragraph [0030] discloses using the system to evaluate performance of autonomous systems. Paragraph [0136] at least discloses updating simulator and control software.
Atsmon does not disclose the following limitations that Moriya suggests:
“providing a graphical user interface (GUI) that displays a map and that allows a user to interactively perform via one or more interactive GUI operations, with respect to the map, two or more of: select one or more simulated trajectories of a simulated machine, place one or more synthetic objects within the map; or identify one or more lane elements affected by the one or more synthetic objects; generating, based at least on user input provided via the user interface, a modified map…”
Moriya Figures 19A-19E suggests a system in which synthetic objects, in this protrusions, are added to objects alongside a route of a robot via inputs from a user interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Atsmon with the modifiability disclosed by Moriya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by allowing for editable map environments for navigation of autonomous systems.
Atsmon in view of Moriya does not teach the following limitations that LaForge teaches:
“the generating of the modified map including adding an edit layer indicating the one or more synthetic objects to a base map layer corresponding to real-world map data in which the base map layer is unchanged by the user input provided via the GUI”
LaForge Claim 1 teaches an editing layer for a map. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an editing layer superimposed on a base layer of a map to allow changes to a virtual map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Atsmon in view of Moriya with the editing layer taught by LaForge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing a means of undoing edits conveniently.
With regards to Claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsmon in view of Moriya in view of LaForge in view of Ogale (US 2019/0034794).
With regards to Claim 4, Atsmon in view of Moriya in view of LaForge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Ogale does disclose:
“wherein the one or more operations include using the synthetic track data as training data for updating one or more parameters of one or more neural networks.”
Ogale Paragraph [0112] discloses training a neural network based off of synthetic trajectories of simulated vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Atsmon in view of Moriya in view of LaForge with the neural training disclosed by Ogale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by allowing for the use of large datasets when making navigation decisions.
With regards to Claim 5, Atsmon in view of Moriya in view of LaForge discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 but does not disclose the following limitations that Ogale does disclose:
“wherein the one or more neural networks, after updating, are deployed in one or more real-world machines for use in performing one or more navigation operations.”
Ogale Paragraph [0006] discloses using the trained neural networks to perform navigation operations of real-world vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Atsmon in view of Moriya in view of LaForge with the neural training disclosed by Ogale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by allowing for the use of large datasets when making navigation decisions.
With regards to Claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Relevant References
Rathod (US 2018/0350144)
Related to virtual simulations of real-world environments.
Wei (US 2016/0314224)
Related to autonomous vehicle simulation system.
Langseth (US 2013/0178257)
Related to virtual objects in augmented realities.
Finocchio (US 2012/0154373)
Related to machine learning graphical processes.
Vincent (US 10,825,247)
Related to graphical user interfaces displaying graphical representations of the world.
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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. 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.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights