9DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
1. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on provisional application filed on 12/06/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasola et al (U.S.2020/0408535) and further in view of Rusignola et al (U.S. 2022/0026220).
2. As per claim 1,8 Fasola disclosed a method comprising: operating a vehicle in a first environment, the vehicle including a change detection system and at least one sensor configured to obtain data associated with the first environment [While in some embodiments sensors 104-106 may capture data at a lower resolution than is reflected in the high definition map, the current data captured by sensors 104-106 can be sufficient to determine such inconsistencies. Detecting these inconsistencies is important because the high definition map can become outdated and no longer reflect the configuration of the road] (Paragraph. 0038), wherein operating the vehicle in the first environment includes obtaining the data associated with the first environment using the at least one sensor;
obtaining a context map associated with the first environment [As the autonomous vehicle 102 navigates a route, sensors 104-106 capture current data reflecting the environment around the autonomous vehicle 102. The data aggregator 204 can accumulate the current data from the at least one sensor 104-106 as the autonomous vehicle 102 passes through a geographic area. Even over a small distance, data aggregator 204 can accumulate current data from the same sensor as the sensor continuously collects data. ] (Paragraph. 0039);
determining, while the vehicle is operating, a resolution for the first inconsistency; and taking an action based on the resolution, wherein the action is taken by the vehicle (Paragraph. 0049).
However, Fasola did not explicitly disclose, “comparing, using the change detection system, the data associated with the first environment and the context map to identify at least a first inconsistency between the data associated with the first environment and the context map”.
In the same field of endeavor Rusignola disclosed, “While the present technology has been described above in the context of authoritative map data for use by an autonomous vehicle, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that the present technology can be utilize to revise or update any reference data by using data collected by a sensor in the environment. The present technology is particularly useful when the reference data is of higher resolution or higher quality than might be collected by a sensor in the environment. Moreover, it is to be understood that the described steps may be performed in various orders. For example, the relevant map portion may be marked (510) as restricted before or after the inconsistency is confirmed (506), the determination of whether the inconsistency can be remedied with low resolution data (512), etc (Paragraph. 0063).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing was made to have incorporated While the present technology has been described above in the context of authoritative map data for use by an autonomous vehicle, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that the present technology can be utilize to revise or update any reference data by using data collected by a sensor in the environment. The present technology is particularly useful when the reference data is of higher resolution or higher quality than might be collected by a sensor in the environment. Moreover, it is to be understood that the described steps may be performed in various orders. For example, the relevant map portion may be marked (510) as restricted before or after the inconsistency is confirmed (506), the determination of whether the inconsistency can be remedied with low resolution data (512), etc as taught by Rusignola in the method and system Fasola to increase efficiency of autonomous vehicles in wider variety of environments.
3. As per claims 2,9 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed wherein operating the vehicle in the first environment includes autonomously operating the vehicle in the first environment, wherein obtaining the context map includes obtaining the context map from autonomy system of the vehicle, and wherein comparing the data associated with the first environment and the context map to identify the first inconsistency includes determining at least one probability associated with an existence of the first inconsistency, the context map describing a geographical region, the context map including information about features associated with the geographical region (Rusignola, Paragraph. 0063).
4. As per claims 3,10,17 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed wherein the first inconsistency is a first feature that is identified in the data associated with the first environment and is not included in the context map (Rusignola, Paragraph. 0063), and wherein the at least one probability is a first probability that the first feature is not represented in the context map, the information about the features including information about the features including labels that identify the features (Rusignola, Paragraph. 0020).
5. As per claims 4,11,18 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed wherein the first inconsistency is a second feature that is represented in the context map and is not identified in the data associated with first environment, and wherein the at least one probability is a second probability that the feature is missing from the first environment (Fasola, Paragraph. 0035).
6. As per claims 5,12,19 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed wherein comparing the data associated with the first environment and the context map to identify the first inconsistency further includes determining a relevance metric associated with the first inconsistency (Fasola, Paragraph. 0032).
7. As per claims 6,13 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed further including: providing information associated with the first inconsistency to a teleoperations arrangement, wherein determining, while the vehicle is operating, the resolution for the first inconsistency includes determining the resolution at the teleoperations arrangement (Fasola, Paragraph. 0029).
8. As per claims 7,14,16 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed wherein the resolution includes the action, the method further including: obtaining, at the vehicle, an instruction from the teleoperations arrangement, the instruction arranged to specify the action, the action being at least one selected from a group including continuing autonomously operating the vehicle, stopping the vehicle, and enabling the vehicle to be operated by the teleoperations arrangement (Fasola, Paragraph. 0015).
9. As per claim 20 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed where the enterprise system is arranged to use the information associated with the first inconsistency and the first resolution to determine whether to update to the context map (Fasola, Paragraph. 0003).
10. As per claim 21 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed wherein operating the vehicle in the first environment includes obtaining the data associated with the first environment using the at least one sensor while the vehicle operates at a first speed, and wherein determining, while the vehicle is operating, the resolution for the first inconsistency includes determining the resolution for the first inconsistency while the vehicle is operating at a second speed, the second speed being slower than the first speed (Rusignola,Paragraph. 0063).
11. As per claim 22 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed wherein determining, while the vehicle is operating, a resolution for the first inconsistency includes determining the resolution for the first inconsistency onboard the vehicle using the change detection system (Rusignola, Paragraph. 0027). Examiner interpreted the resolution as the process by which the system corrects an inconsistency in other words validation/revalidation process.
12. As per claim 15 Fasola-Rusignola disclosed a framework comprising: at least a first vehicle, the first vehicle including a change detection system and at least one sensor configured to obtain data while the first vehicle operates, the first vehicle further arranged to access a context map, wherein the change detection system arranged to compare the data to the context map to identify a first inconsistency (Fasola, Paragraph. 0038-0039); a teleoperations arrangement, the teleoperations arrangement configured to monitor the first vehicle (Fasola, Paragraph. 0005) wherein the first vehicle is arranged to provide information associated with the first inconsistency to the first vehicle, the teleoperations arrangement further being configured to determine a first resolution to the first inconsistency and to provide the first resolution to the first vehicle, the first vehicle further being arranged to take an action in response to the first resolution; and an enterprise system, the enterprise system configured to maintain the context map (Rusignola, Paragraph. 0063), wherein the teleoperations arrangement is arranged to provide the information associated with the first inconsistency and the first resolution to the enterprise system (Rusignola, Paragraph. 0014 & 0027). Claim 15 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 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.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
15. 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 un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights