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 Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to the communication filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 19 and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments provided for the U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections of claims 1-30 have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully traverses the §102 rejection of claim 1over Muto because Muto fails to disclose at least the limitations "perform map-aiding positioning based on a first set of map data," "verify whether an integrity of the first set of map data meets an accuracy threshold," and "discard the first set of map data if the verification ... does not meet the accuracy threshold," as expressly recited in claim 1. Unless otherwise indicated, any reference to a cited reference refers only to the portions specifically identified in the Office Action.
“First, Muto does not teach "perform map-aiding positioning based on a first set of map data," as recited in claim 1. Although the Office Action cites Muto's disclosure that "the in-vehicle device 20 generates first route information in a shadow mode by using the temporary map (S103)" (Fig. 2, step S103; SS [0031]-[0034]), generating route information from a temporary map is not equivalent to performing "map-aiding positioning." Route generation or route simulation is fundamentally different from using map data to aid or improve the accuracy or reliability of positioning. Moreover, Muto expressly states that the generated route information is used only in a "shadow mode, "while the actual vehicle continues to operate based on an official map. See Muto, S [0032] ("shadow mode ... no assisted driving ... performed using the generated route information."). Thus, the temporary map is not used to aid positioning; itis merely used to compute a comparison route. Muto therefore does not disclose the claimed map-aiding positioning,” (from remarks page 11).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that Muto does not perform map-aiding positioning using the temporary map because no assisted driving is performed using the route information generated by the temporary map and because the map data is not used to improve the accuracy or reliability of positioning. Examiner notes that Muto uses the temporary map to correlate map data with detected features along a road (see for example diagram of features to be detected in Fig. 5 and related description in [0046]; “As shown in FIG. 5, when a portion at which a change in feature has occurred is present, during generation of a temporary map, the changed portion is provided with a flag QA=0 that means that the portion is unverified. When the quality of the temporary map is evaluated to be acceptable in the determination of the quality of the temporary map described above, QA=0 for the changed portion is changed to QA=1 that means that the portion is verified.”). Furthermore, the claims do not require that any driving decisions be made using the “first set of map data”, but simply that the map-aiding positioning be performed. Although Muto does not teach performing assisted driving using the temporary map, by correlating the temporary map features to detected roadside features, Muto nevertheless teaches performing map-aiding positioning.
(B) Applicant argues, “Second, Muto does not disclose "verify whether an integrity of the first set of map data meets an accuracy threshold," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action maps this limitation to Muto's calculation of a "difference amount A" between first route information (based on the temporary map) and second route information (based on sensors) (see Muto, 11 [0034]--[0035]; Fig. 2, S105-5106). However, Muto evaluates only whether the route behavior predicted by the temporary map is consistent with sensor-derived behavior. This does not constitute verification of the integrity of the map data itself. Accordingly, Muto's "quality determination" is based on route-level deviations, not on evaluating whether the temporary map itself meets an integrity or accuracy threshold as required by claim 1,” (from remarks page 11).
As to point (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that Muto does not verify the integrity of the map data because the “difference amount A” of Muto is based on “route-level deviations” and is not compared to a threshold. However, in paragraph [0035] Muto explicitly makes a “map quality determination” by assessing whether the difference amount A is “a predetermined value or less”, in other words, by comparing the value to a threshold. Furthermore, the difference amount A is calculated by evaluating the accuracy of the temporary map, as stated in [0034]: “The difference amount A is caused by, for example, a change in feature such as an increase or decrease in signs, a detour from the route due to construction, or the like.” Therefore, Muto verifies map data integrity by comparison to a threshold, as required by claim 1.
(C) Applicant argues, “Third, Muto does not disclose "discard the first set of map data if the verification of the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action cites [0051] of Muto, but this paragraph describes actions taken by the server, not the UE. For example, when the quality determination indicates that the temporary map is unacceptable, the determination result is transmitted to the server, and the server "does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20...." The server then regenerates a new temporary map. The UE does not discard the temporary map; it merely reports a determination result. Thus, the claimed UE-side discarding operation is absent from Muto,” (from remarks page 12).
As to point (C), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that the UE does not discard the temporary map after a determination of unacceptable map integrity. However, in the sequence Muto describes in [0051], after a temporary map is found to be of unacceptable quality, the server generates a new temporary map. This new temporary map is sent to the device for the same verification steps performed on the previous temporary map. When the new temporary map is provided, the old temporary map is no longer used. Therefore, the old temporary map can be accurately classified as discarded.
(D) Applicant argues, “The Office Action does not identify, and Applicant is unable to discern, how Breed, Kadous, Kalai, or Haramaty discloses or suggests the above recitations of claim 1. Thus, Breed, Kadous, Kalai, or Haramaty, whether taken individually or in combination with Muto discussed above, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest all features of claim 1.
“Independent claims 23 and 30 recite features similar to those of claim 1. The arguments above therefore apply equally to these claims.
“Dependent claims are dependent on their base claims and, therefore, include all of the features of their respective base claims and additional distinguishing features therein. As such, these dependent claims are each also allowable for the reasons given with respect to independent claim 1, and because of the additional features set forth in each of these claims.
“For at least the aforementioned reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103,” (from remarks page 12).
As to point (D), see points (A) – (C).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner interprets claim limitations of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Supporting structure from the specification for the limitations claim 29 is detailed below:
Structure for “means for performing a map-aiding positioning based on a first set of map data” can be found in paragraph [0124] of the instant specification: “The map-aiding positioning may be performed by, e.g., the map-aiding positioning component 198, the camera 1532, the one or more sensors 1518, the transceiver(s) 1522, the cellular baseband processor(s) 1524, and/or the application processor(s) 1506 of the apparatus 1504 in FIG. 15.”
Structure for “means for verifying whether an integrity of the first set of map data meets an accuracy threshold” can be found in paragraph [0125] of the instant specification: “The verification of the integrity of the first set of map data may be performed by, e.g., the map-aiding positioning component 198, the camera 1532, the one or more sensors 1518, the transceiver(s) 1522, the cellular baseband processor(s) 1524, and/or the application processor(s) 1506 of the apparatus 1504 in FIG. 15.”
Structure for “means for discarding the first set of map data if the verification of the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold” can be found in paragraph [0126] of the instant specification: “The discarding of the first set of map may be performed by, e.g., the map-aiding positioning component 198, the camera 1532, the one or more sensors 1518, the transceiver(s) 1522, the cellular baseband processor(s) 1524, and/or the application processor(s) 1506 of the apparatus 1504 in FIG. 15.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-13, 17-18, 22-26 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Muto (US-20210180959-A1; hereinafter Muto).
Regarding claim 1, Muto discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication (see at least Fig. 1, communication unit 22) at a user equipment (UE) (see at least Fig. 1, in-vehicle device 20), comprising:
at least one memory (see at least Fig. 1, ROM of control unit 21);
at least one transceiver (see at least [0013]; “The server 10, the in-vehicle device 20, and the road information providing vehicle 30 are communicably connected to each other via a communication unit 12 and a communication unit 22 so as to be able to transmit and receive data through a radio communication network 40.”); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (see at least [0021]; “The control unit 21 is composed of a processor including a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, an I/O unit, and the like.”), the at least one processor is configured to (see at least [0022]; “The control unit 21 executes, for example, a program stored in the ROM by the CPU to implement functions of functional units such as the assisted driving control unit 21a, the map information generation unit 21b, the difference calculation unit 21c, and the map quality determination unit 21d and control the communication unit 22, the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, the inertia sensor 27, and the like.”):
perform map-aiding positioning (see at least [0019]; “The in-vehicle device 20 detects an accurate position of the vehicle in chronological order on the basis of information acquired from the sensors. Furthermore, the in-vehicle device 20 recognizes information on the road surroundings, for example, recognizes a road condition such as a lane or recognizes a feature such as a roadside strip or a sign.” See also [0015]; “The map data may be, for example, data including coordinate information on various features that are present along a road. In an aspect, such map data corresponds to data for causing a vehicle to autonomously travel along a road.”) based on a first set of map data (see at least [0031] – [0034]; “In the verification vehicle that has received the temporary map, the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle performs verification of the temporary map. Specifically, the in-vehicle device 20 generates first route information in a shadow mode by using the temporary map (S103). The first route information is generated by the assisted driving control unit 21a of the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle… In the verification vehicle, the in-vehicle device 20 generates second route information on the basis of information acquired by the sensors including the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, and the inertia sensor 27 (S104). The second route information is generated by the assisted driving control unit 21a. S103 and S104 are both performed in the shadow mode. Next, the difference calculation unit 21c calculates a difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information (S105).” By correlating information from the temporary map with data gathered by the vehicle sensors, the device is performing map-aiding positioning.);
verify whether an integrity of the first set of map data meets an accuracy threshold (see at least [0034] – [0035]; “Next, the difference calculation unit 21c calculates a difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information (S105). The difference amount A is caused by, for example, a change in feature such as an increase or decrease in signs, a detour from the route due to construction, or the like. At this point, the map information generation unit 21b generates difference map information based on the difference amount A. The difference map information may be generated, for example, as coordinate data on a portion at which a change in feature has occurred or coordinate data on an alternative route. Next, the map quality determination unit 21d determines quality of the temporary map (S106). The quality of the temporary map is determined on the basis of whether the difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information is a predetermined value or less. When the difference amount A is the predetermined value or less, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be acceptable, and when the difference amount A exceeds the predetermined value, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be unacceptable.”); and
discard the first set of map data if the verification of the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold (see at least [0051], where the temporary map is replaced with a new temporary map when the accuracy is found to be unacceptable: “When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10, and the quality check result reflection unit 11b of the server 10 that has received the determination result does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20. In this case, the map generation unit 11a of the server 10 generates again a temporary map taking into consideration newly accumulated map coordinate data and feature change information, and through the processing flow shown in FIG. 2 or 3, the in-vehicle device 20 performs verification of the temporary map and determination of quality of the temporary map.”).
Regarding claim 2, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Muto further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
output an indication of the discarded first set of map data if the verification of the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold (see at least [0051]; “When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10…”).
Regarding claim 3, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Muto further discloses:
wherein to output the indication of the discarded first set of map data, the at least one processor is configured to:
transmit, via the at least one transceiver, the indication of the discarded first set of map data (see at least [0047]; “When the quality of the official map is unacceptable, the road information providing vehicle 30 transmits, to the server 10, map coordinate data on a changed portion and feature change information which is information on a change in feature.”); or
store the indication of the discarded first set of map data.
Regarding claim 4, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Muto further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
download, via the at least one transceiver, the first set of map data prior to the performance of the map-aiding positioning (see at least [0029]; “The generated temporary map is transmitted to the verification vehicle (S102).”), and wherein to perform the map-aiding positioning based on the first set of map data, the at least one processor is configured to perform the map-aiding positioning based on the downloaded first set of map data (see at least [0031]; “In the verification vehicle that has received the temporary map, the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle performs verification of the temporary map. Specifically, the in-vehicle device 20 generates first route information in a shadow mode by using the temporary map (S103). The first route information is generated by the assisted driving control unit 21a of the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 5, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Muto further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
re-download, via the at least one transceiver, the first set of map data or reporting results of the verification if the verification of the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold (see at least [0051]; “When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10, and the quality check result reflection unit 11b of the server 10 that has received the determination result does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20. In this case, the map generation unit 11a of the server 10 generates again a temporary map taking into consideration newly accumulated map coordinate data and feature change information, and through the processing flow shown in FIG. 2 or 3, the in-vehicle device 20 performs verification of the temporary map and determination of quality of the temporary map.” See also Figs. 2 and 3, where the temporary map is transmitted to the vehicle between steps S102 and S103).
Regarding claim 6, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Muto further discloses:
receive, via at least one of the transceiver, an indication to perform the map-aiding positioning (see at least [0029]; “The generated temporary map is transmitted to the verification vehicle (S102).”), wherein to perform the map-aiding positioning, the at least one processor is configured to perform the map-aiding positioning further based on the indication to perform the map-aiding positioning (see at least [0031]; “In the verification vehicle that has received the temporary map, the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle performs verification of the temporary map. Specifically, the in-vehicle device 20 generates first route information in a shadow mode by using the temporary map (S103).”).
Regarding claim 7, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Muto further discloses:
wherein the first set of map data includes:
a set of two-dimensional (2D) map data (see at least [0015] – [0016]; “The map data may be, for example, data including coordinate information on various features that are present along a road. In an aspect, such map data corresponds to data for causing a vehicle to autonomously travel along a road. The map generation unit 11a generates a temporary map and an official map on the basis of acquired map data.”),
a set of three-dimensional (3D) map data,
a set of high-definition (HD) map data,
a set of street views, or
a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Muto further discloses:
wherein to verify whether the integrity of the first set of map data meets the accuracy threshold, the at least one processor is configured to:
compare the first set of map data with a second set of map data (see at least [0034]; “Next, the difference calculation unit 21c calculates a difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information (S105).”) from a different source (see at least [0033]; “In the verification vehicle, the in-vehicle device 20 generates second route information on the basis of information acquired by the sensors including the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, and the inertia sensor 27 (S104). The second route information is generated by the assisted driving control unit 21a.”); and
identify the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold if the comparison between the first set of map data and the second set of map data (see at least [0034]; “Next, the difference calculation unit 21c calculates a difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information (S105). The difference amount A is caused by, for example, a change in feature such as an increase or decrease in signs, a detour from the route due to construction, or the like. At this point, the map information generation unit 21b generates difference map information based on the difference amount A.”) shows an indication of inconsistency above a consistency threshold (see at least [0035]; “Next, the map quality determination unit 21d determines quality of the temporary map (S106). The quality of the temporary map is determined on the basis of whether the difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information is a predetermined value or less. When the difference amount A is the predetermined value or less, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be acceptable, and when the difference amount A exceeds the predetermined value, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be unacceptable.”).
Regarding claim 9, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 8. Muto further discloses:
wherein to compare the first set of map data with the second set of map data, the at least one processor is configured to:
compare at least one of a road heading, a road speed limit, a land number, a cross-section geometry, a terrain height, a street name, a landmark validity (see at least [0034]; “The difference amount A is caused by, for example, a change in feature such as an increase or decrease in signs, a detour from the route due to construction, or the like.”), a building number, or a real-time traffic condition between the first set of map data and the second set of map data.
Regarding claim 10, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 8. Muto further discloses:
wherein the second set of map data is from a local database of the UE (see at least [0024]; “As shown in FIG. 2, in the map generation system 1, the road information providing vehicle 30 acquires road information, for example, from an image detected by the road information acquisition unit of the road information providing vehicle 30 (S101). The road condition includes not only road information on a road on which the vehicle travels but also a condition of a roadside strip and information on features such as a road sign, a bridge, a station, and a store, landmarks, and the like.”), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
establish the second set of map data using at least one sensor of the UE (see at least [0033]; “In the verification vehicle, the in-vehicle device 20 generates second route information on the basis of information acquired by the sensors including the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, and the inertia sensor 27 (S104). The second route information is generated by the assisted driving control unit 21a. S103 and S104 are both performed in the shadow mode.”).
Regarding claim 11, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Muto further discloses:
wherein to verify whether the integrity of the first set of map data meets the accuracy threshold, the at least one processor is configured to:
compare the first set of map data with a set of images captured by at least one camera of the UE (see at least [0027]; “Map coordinate data on a road and a feature and information on a change in feature are detected from an official map distributed to the road information providing vehicle 30 and a difference between route information generated from the official map and a road condition acquired by the sensors such as a camera.”); and
identify the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold if the comparison between the first set of map data and the set of images shows an indication of inconsistency above a consistency threshold (see at least [0034] – [0035]; “Next, the difference calculation unit 21c calculates a difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information (S105). The difference amount A is caused by, for example, a change in feature such as an increase or decrease in signs, a detour from the route due to construction, or the like… Next, the map quality determination unit 21d determines quality of the temporary map (S106). The quality of the temporary map is determined on the basis of whether the difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information is a predetermined value or less.”).
Regarding claim 12, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Muto further discloses:
wherein the set of images corresponds to a real-time computer vision (CV) or a real-time visual scan captured by the at least one camera of the UE (see at least [0017] – [0018]; “The sensors include a road information acquisition unit 23 that recognizes a condition of a road and road surroundings… Examples of the road information acquisition unit 23 include a camera…”).
Regarding claim 13, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Muto further discloses:
wherein to verify whether the integrity of the first set of map data meets the accuracy threshold, the at least one processor is configured to:
compare a first UE dynamic derived from the first set of map data with a second UE dynamic (see at least [0034]; “Next, the difference calculation unit 21c calculates a difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information (S105).”) derived from real-time global navigation satellite system (GNSS) data or from inertial measurement unit (IMU) data (see at least [0033]; “In the verification vehicle, the in-vehicle device 20 generates second route information on the basis of information acquired by the sensors including the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, and the inertia sensor 27 (S104).”); and
identify the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold if the comparison between the first UE dynamic and the second UE dynamic shows an indication of inconsistency above a consistency threshold (see at least [0035]; “Next, the map quality determination unit 21d determines quality of the temporary map (S106). The quality of the temporary map is determined on the basis of whether the difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information is a predetermined value or less.”).
Regarding claim 17, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Muto further discloses:
wherein to verify whether the integrity of the first set of map data meets the accuracy threshold, the at least one processor is configured to:
compare a first set of locations of a set of objects derived from the first set of map data with a second set of locations of the set of objects (see at least [0033] – [0034]; “In the verification vehicle, the in-vehicle device 20 generates second route information on the basis of information acquired by the sensors including the road information acquisition unit 23… Next, the difference calculation unit 21c calculates a difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information (S105).”) derived from at least one radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor (see at least [0018]; “Examples of the road information acquisition unit 23 include a camera, a LiDAR (light detection and ranging or laser imaging detection and ranging), and a millimeter wave radar.”); and
identify the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold if the comparison between the first set of locations and the second set of locations shows an indication of inconsistency above a consistency threshold (see at least [0035]; “Next, the map quality determination unit 21d determines quality of the temporary map (S106). The quality of the temporary map is determined on the basis of whether the difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information is a predetermined value or less.”).
Regarding claim 18, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 17. Muto further discloses:
wherein the at least one radar sensor includes:
at least one radio frequency (RF) radar sensor,
at least one light detection and ranging (Lidar) sensor, at least one ultra-sound radar sensor,
at least one ultra-wideband (UWB) radar sensor,
or a combination thereof (see at least [0018]; “Examples of the road information acquisition unit 23 include a camera, a LiDAR (light detection and ranging or laser imaging detection and ranging), and a millimeter wave radar.”).
Regarding claim 22, Muto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Muto further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
associate a tracking device or an object with a set of visual features surrounding the tracking device or the object (see at least [0019]; “The in-vehicle device 20 detects an accurate position of the vehicle in chronological order on the basis of information acquired from the sensors. Furthermore, the in-vehicle device 20 recognizes information on the road surroundings, for example, recognizes a road condition such as a lane or recognizes a feature such as a roadside strip or a sign.” See also [0024] – [0026]);
compare the set of visual features with at least one feature in the first set of map data (see at least [0027]; “Map coordinate data on a road and a feature and information on a change in feature are detected from an official map distributed to the road information providing vehicle 30 and a difference between route information generated from the official map and a road condition acquired by the sensors such as a camera. The map coordinate data and the feature change information are transmitted to the server 10 (S101).”); and
locate the tracking device or the object based on the comparison of the set of visual features with the at least one feature in the first set of map data (see at least [0019]; “The in-vehicle device 20 detects an accurate position of the vehicle in chronological order on the basis of information acquired from the sensors.”).
Regarding claim 23, Muto discloses:
A method (see at least Abs; “A method executed by at least one processor in accordance with assisted driving or automatic driving of a vehicle includes…”) of wireless communication (see at least [0013]; “The server 10, the in-vehicle device 20, and the road information providing vehicle 30 are communicably connected to each other via a communication unit 12 and a communication unit 22 so as to be able to transmit and receive data through a radio communication network 40.”) at a user equipment (UE) (see at least Fig. 1, in-vehicle device 20), comprising:
performing a map-aiding positioning (see at least [0019]; “The in-vehicle device 20 detects an accurate position of the vehicle in chronological order on the basis of information acquired from the sensors. Furthermore, the in-vehicle device 20 recognizes information on the road surroundings, for example, recognizes a road condition such as a lane or recognizes a feature such as a roadside strip or a sign.” See also [0015]; “The map data may be, for example, data including coordinate information on various features that are present along a road. In an aspect, such map data corresponds to data for causing a vehicle to autonomously travel along a road.”) based on a first set of map data (see at least [0031] – [0034]; “In the verification vehicle that has received the temporary map, the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle performs verification of the temporary map. Specifically, the in-vehicle device 20 generates first route information in a shadow mode by using the temporary map (S103). The first route information is generated by the assisted driving control unit 21a of the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle… In the verification vehicle, the in-vehicle device 20 generates second route information on the basis of information acquired by the sensors including the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, and the inertia sensor 27 (S104). The second route information is generated by the assisted driving control unit 21a. S103 and S104 are both performed in the shadow mode. Next, the difference calculation unit 21c calculates a difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information (S105).” By correlating information from the temporary map with data gathered by the vehicle sensors, the device is performing map-aiding positioning.));
verifying whether an integrity of the first set of map data meets an accuracy threshold (see at least [0035]; “Next, the map quality determination unit 21d determines quality of the temporary map (S106). The quality of the temporary map is determined on the basis of whether the difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information is a predetermined value or less. When the difference amount A is the predetermined value or less, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be acceptable, and when the difference amount A exceeds the predetermined value, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be unacceptable.”); and
discarding the first set of map data if the verification of the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold (see at least [0051]; “When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10, and the quality check result reflection unit 11b of the server 10 that has received the determination result does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20. In this case, the map generation unit 11a of the server 10 generates again a temporary map taking into consideration newly accumulated map coordinate data and feature change information, and through the processing flow shown in FIG. 2 or 3, the in-vehicle device 20 performs verification of the temporary map and determination of quality of the temporary map.”).
Regarding claim 24, Muto teaches the method of claim 23. The remaining limitations of claim 24 are analogous to those of claim 8 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 25, Muto teaches the method of claim 23. The remaining limitations of claim 25 are analogous to those of claim 11 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 26, Muto teaches the method of claim 23. The remaining limitations of claim 26 are analogous to those of claim 13 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 29, Muto teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication (see at least Fig. 1, communication unit 22) at a user equipment (UE) (see at least Fig. 1, in-vehicle device 20), comprising:
Means for performing a map-aiding positioning based on a first set of map data (see at least [0022]; “The control unit 21 executes, for example, a program stored in the ROM by the CPU to implement functions of functional units such as the assisted driving control unit 21a, the map information generation unit 21b, the difference calculation unit 21c, and the map quality determination unit 21d and control the communication unit 22, the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, the inertia sensor 27, and the like.” See also Fig. 2, S103: “Generate first route information using temporary map”);
means for verifying whether an integrity of the first set of map data meets an accuracy threshold (see at least [0022]; “The control unit 21 executes, for example, a program stored in the ROM by the CPU to implement functions of functional units such as the assisted driving control unit 21a, the map information generation unit 21b, the difference calculation unit 21c, and the map quality determination unit 21d and control the communication unit 22, the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, the inertia sensor 27, and the like.” See also [0035]; “Next, the map quality determination unit 21d determines quality of the temporary map (S106). The quality of the temporary map is determined on the basis of whether the difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information is a predetermined value or less. When the difference amount A is the predetermined value or less, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be acceptable, and when the difference amount A exceeds the predetermined value, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be unacceptable.”); and
means for discarding the first set of map data if the verification of the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold (see at least [0022]; “The control unit 21 executes, for example, a program stored in the ROM by the CPU to implement functions of functional units such as the assisted driving control unit 21a, the map information generation unit 21b, the difference calculation unit 21c, and the map quality determination unit 21d and control the communication unit 22, the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, the inertia sensor 27, and the like.” See also [0051]; “When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10, and the quality check result reflection unit 11b of the server 10 that has received the determination result does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20. In this case, the map generation unit 11a of the server 10 generates again a temporary map taking into consideration newly accumulated map coordinate data and feature change information, and through the processing flow shown in FIG. 2 or 3, the in-vehicle device 20 performs verification of the temporary map and determination of quality of the temporary map.”).
Regarding claim 30, Muto teaches:
A computer-readable medium storing computer executable code (see at least Fig. 1, ROM of control unit 21) at a user equipment (UE) (see at least Fig. 1, in-vehicle device 20), the code when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to (see at least [0022]; “The control unit 21 executes, for example, a program stored in the ROM by the CPU to implement functions of functional units such as the assisted driving control unit 21a, the map information generation unit 21b, the difference calculation unit 21c, and the map quality determination unit 21d and control the communication unit 22, the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, the inertia sensor 27, and the like.”):
perform map-aiding positioning (see at least [0019]; “The in-vehicle device 20 detects an accurate position of the vehicle in chronological order on the basis of information acquired from the sensors. Furthermore, the in-vehicle device 20 recognizes information on the road surroundings, for example, recognizes a road condition such as a lane or recognizes a feature such as a roadside strip or a sign.” See also [0015]; “The map data may be, for example, data including coordinate information on various features that are present along a road. In an aspect, such map data corresponds to data for causing a vehicle to autonomously travel along a road.”) based on a first set of map data (see at least [0031] – [0034]; “In the verification vehicle that has received the temporary map, the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle performs verification of the temporary map. Specifically, the in-vehicle device 20 generates first route information in a shadow mode by using the temporary map (S103). The first route information is generated by the assisted driving control unit 21a of the in-vehicle device 20 of the verification vehicle… In the verification vehicle, the in-vehicle device 20 generates second route information on the basis of information acquired by the sensors including the road information acquisition unit 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the vehicle speed sensor 25, the satellite positioning system 26, and the inertia sensor 27 (S104). The second route information is generated by the assisted driving control unit 21a. S103 and S104 are both performed in the shadow mode. Next, the difference calculation unit 21c calculates a difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information (S105).” By correlating information from the temporary map with data gathered by the vehicle sensors, the device is performing map-aiding positioning.);
verify whether an integrity of the first set of map data meets an accuracy threshold (see at least [0035]; “Next, the map quality determination unit 21d determines quality of the temporary map (S106). The quality of the temporary map is determined on the basis of whether the difference amount A between the first route information and the second route information is a predetermined value or less. When the difference amount A is the predetermined value or less, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be acceptable, and when the difference amount A exceeds the predetermined value, the quality of the temporary map is determined to be unacceptable.”); and
discard the first set of map data if the verification of the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold (see at least [0051]; “When the quality determination result of the temporary map at S106 indicates that the quality of the temporary map is unacceptable, a determination result indicating that the quality determination result of the temporary map is unacceptable is transmitted to the server 10, and the quality check result reflection unit 11b of the server 10 that has received the determination result does not transmit a signal for causing the temporary map to be an official map to the in-vehicle device 20. In this case, the map generation unit 11a of the server 10 generates again a temporary map taking into consideration newly accumulated map coordinate data and feature change information, and through the processing flow shown in FIG. 2 or 3, the in-vehicle device 20 performs verification of the temporary map and determination of quality of the temporary map.”).
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 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Breed et al. (US-20080154629-A1; hereinafter Breed).
Regarding claim 14, Muto discloses the apparatus of claim 1. However, Muto fails to disclose:
wherein to verify whether the integrity of the first set of map data meets the accuracy threshold, the at least one processor is configured to: compare a first heading of the UE derived from the first set of map data with a second heading of the UE derived from a magnetometer; and
identify the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold if the comparison between the first heading of the UE and the second heading of the UE shows an indication of inconsistency above a consistency threshold.
Muto discloses acquiring and updating maps used in vehicle navigation, and Breed is directed to determining a safe speed limit based on road conditions. Breed teaches:
wherein to verify the integrity of the first set of data (see at least [0111]); “As discussed below, many sensors can be used to correct the errors in the IMU in addition to the GPS and PPS-based systems, and thus could be part of the error correction determining system.”), the at least one processor is configured to (see at least [0031]; “Further, there are disclosed several processors or controllers, that perform various control operations.”):
compare a first heading of the UE derived from the first set of map data with a second heading of the UE derived from a magnetometer (see at least [0111]; “A magnetic flux gate compass and/or declinometer values can be included in the map database and compared by the host vehicle as it passes mapped areas.”); and
identify the integrity of the first set of data does not meet the accuracy threshold if the comparison between the first heading of the UE and the second heading of the UE shows an indication of inconsistency (see at least [0111]); “As discussed below, many sensors can be used to correct the errors in the IMU in addition to the GPS and PPS-based systems, and thus could be part of the error correction determining system.”).
Muto teaches evaluating map quality by comparing map data and sensor data, and generating map corrections when the difference is greater than a predetermined value. Breed teaches evaluating IMU measurement accuracy by comparing compass measurements with reference values from a map database. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Breed’s use of a magnetometer to correct IMU data, to apply to same comparison to correct map data, using the method taught by Muto using other sensor. Such a modification would require comparing map data and magnetometer data, as is already taught by Breed. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include comparisons to magnetometer data in order to correct errors in other data, as taught by Breed (see at least [0111]).
Regarding claim 27, Muto teaches the method of claim 23. The remaining limitations of claim 27 are analogous to those of claim 14 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 15-16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Kadous et al. (US-20120290636-A1; hereinafter Kadous).
Regarding claim 15, Muto discloses the apparatus of claim 1. However, Muto fails to disclose:
wherein to verify whether the integrity of the first set of map data meets the accuracy threshold, the at least one processor is configured to:
compare a first set of locations of a set of transmitters derived from the first set of map data with a second set of locations of the set of transmitters derived from at least one communication between the UE and the set of transmitters; and
identify the integrity of the first set of map data does not meet the accuracy threshold if the comparison between the first set of locations and the second set of locations shows an indication of inconsistency above a consistency threshold.
Kadous teaches:
wherein to verify the integrity of the first set of map data (see at least [0048]; “The survey data and the path may be compared to other survey data and paths of the indoor space as well as the map in order to provide an estimate of the quality of the localization produced overall and for each part of the survey data.”), the at least one processor, individually or in any combination (see at least [0023]; “Memory 130 of computer 110 stores information accessible by processor 120, including instructions 131 that may be executed by the processor 120.”), is configured to:
compare a first set of locations of a set of transmitters derived from the first set of map data with a second set of locations of the set of transmitters (see at least [0048]; “For example, each survey's data, including the survey's path, the locations of the paths, and the approximate locations of the wireless network access point identifiers may be compared to other survey data as well as the map in order to determine a consistency score for the survey as well as each segment of the survey.”) derived from at least one communication between the UE and the set of transmitters (see at least [0032[; “The client devices may include an antenna 165 and receiver 166 which may be used to scan the wireless network spectrum and identify local wireless network signals. For example, the antenna may receive "beacon" messages and send them to the receiver which demodulates the information to identify wireless network access points.” See also [0047]; “Again the survey data may include time-indexed log of measurements from one or more orientation devices, wireless network access point identifiers, signal strengths, as well as any markers dropped by the participant.”); and
identify the integrity of the first set of map data (see at least [0051]; “If the consistency score indicates that the survey did not produce a high quality localization overall or it did not give high quality localization for one or more particular areas of the map, the particular area of the map may be flagged for further review in order to determine whether the features of the map (the walls and the rails) are incorrect.”).
Muto discloses acquiring and updating maps by comparing sensor data to existing maps, and Kadous is directed to the quality control of mapping data again by comparing sensor data to existing maps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Muto to include comparing the estimated location of transmitters to the expected location found on a map, as taught by Kadous. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include wireless network identifiers in the gathered sensor data in order to validate the map data, as recognized by Kadous (see Kadous at least [0048] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 16, Muto in view of Kadous discloses the apparatus of claim 15. Kadous further teaches:
wherein the set of transmitters includes: a set of Wi-Fi transmitters (see at least [0032]; “The client devices may include an antenna 165 and receiver 166 which may be used to scan the wireless network spectrum and identify local wireless network signals. For example, the antenna may receive "beacon" messages and send them to the receiver which demodulates the information to identify wireless network access points. In one example, these beacon messages may be IEEE 802.11 management frames transmitted by access points to announce themselves to potential wireless network users.” Examiner notes that IEEE 802.11 standards define the operation and protocols of Wi-Fi.), a set of transmission reception points (TRPs), a set of cell towers, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to combine Muto and Kadous for the reasons given regarding claim 15.
Regarding claim 28, Muto teaches the method of claim 23. The remaining limitations of claim 28 are analogous to those of claim 15 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Kalai et al. (US-20150356118-A1; hereinafter Kalai).
Regarding claim 19, Muto discloses the apparatus of claim 1. However, Muto fails to disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
prioritize a first subset of map data and a second subset of map data in the first set of map data for downloading or buffering based on a modality of the UE; and
download or buffer the first subset of map data and the second subset of map data based on the prioritization.
Kalai teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
prioritize a first subset of map data and a second subset of map data in the first set of map data for downloading or buffering (see at least Abs; “Map data is fetched from an external map database to a local memory of a client device prior to detecting a need to use the map data for rendering maps at the client device. To this end, respective priorities of the points are determined, amounts of map data to be fetched are determined based on the determined priorities, and map data is fetched in accordance with the determined priorities, so that a first amount of map data is fetched for a point with a first priority and a second amount of map data for a point with a second priority…”) based on a modality (see at least [0059]; “While one type of priority discussed above is based on designating what map data (area and/or zoom level data around a route) to retrieve, a second type of priority may be an order or sequence in which that map data is retrieved.”) of the UE (see at least [0059]; “The method and system described above may retrieve or process and store into a cache memory of a client device 16-22 only a subset of available or retrievable map data tiles based on determined areas encompassing a determined route.”); and
download or buffer the first subset of map data and the second subset of map data based on the prioritization (see at least [0061]; “At block 1308, a map database may be accessed in the sequence determined by block 1307 for each set of map data tiles of block 1302. At block 1310, the accessed map data may then be retrieved and/or stored in a local memory for quick access when a user or the map application initiates an access or processing function requiring the map data.”).
Muto discloses acquiring and updating maps used in vehicle navigation, and Kalai is directed to determining the order or priority with which to fetch map data for navigation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Muto to include prioritizing the order with which the map data is acquired from the server as taught by Kalai. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include download different map data in function of its priority in order to efficiently use the available bandwidth, as recognized by Kalai (see Kalai at least [0007]; “Map data tiles may be downloaded and cached in an inefficient manner that may not take advantage of a viewing context to more efficiently retrieve higher priority mapping data over lower priority data… As a result, there is a need to have more intelligent mechanisms for retrieving (e.g., downloading) and/or processing map data, in particular map data tiles, to sufficiently satisfy visual requirements of a limited computing device without wasting bandwidth and processing services.”).
Regarding claim 20, Muto in view of Kalai discloses the apparatus of claim 19. Kalai further teaches:
wherein the first subset of map data corresponds to a defined proximity area of the UE and the second subset of map data corresponds to areas outside the defined proximity area, and wherein the first subset of map data is prioritized over the second subset of map data (see at least [0062]; “In yet another sequence, the origin data may precede the destination data when origin is assigned a higher priority. This may be the case when an origin contains a complex traffic condition. Another case may be when additional information on a current user position (e.g., via a GPS positioning signal) places the user along a route away from the origin.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Muto and Kalai for the reasons given regarding claim 19.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Kalai, further in view of Haramaty et al. (US-20200082611-A1; hereinafter Haramaty).
Regarding claim 21, Muto in view of Kalai discloses the apparatus of claim 20. However, neither Muto nor Kalai explicitly teach:
wherein the second subset of map data is down-sampled.
Muto discloses acquiring and updating maps used in navigation. Kalai is directed to determining the order or priority with which to fetch map data for navigation, including three-dimensional maps (see at least [0032]). Haramaty is directed to generating three-dimensional maps from image data. Haramaty teaches:
wherein the second subset of map data is down-sampled (see at least [0124]; “At block 1720, the processing device sends the coordinates of at least a portion of the points in the merged point cloud to the client device. For example, the frontend 215 may send ECEF coordinates corresponding to a portion of the points associated with the requested region to the client computing device 205. The portion may correspond to a subset of the entire set of points corresponding to the region generating by downsampling the entire set of points to reduce the amount of data transmitted to the client computing device 205 or based on a zoom level or display resolution of the client computing device 205, for example.”).
Kalai discloses that higher zoom levels have higher map data density compared to lower zoom levels (see Kalai at least [0034]), and that maps of various zoom levels may be used in navigation (see at least [0060]). Haramaty teaches that map data may be down-sampled according to zoom level before transmission to the client (see [0124], quoted above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for transmitting map data used in Kalai to include down-sampling in accordance with zoom level as taught by Haramaty. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include down-sampling in order to reduce the amount of data transmitted to a client, as recognized by Haramaty (see Haramaty at least [0124]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ashley B. Raynal whose telephone number is (703)756-4546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 4 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648