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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 10/30/2023 has been acknowledged
Status of Application
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims.
This Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 04/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claims 1 and 12 recites “based on the transformation to the vehicle centric position and the revised position of the first feature, controlling the vehicle to execute an updated trajectory for the vehicle”. Applicant explicitly states in the remarks dated 04/27/2026 that this amendment recites direct movement control of the vehicle. The originally filed specification, drawings, and claims do not disclose, expressly or inherently, any support for vehicle control on an updated trajectory, nor do they provide sufficient description demonstrating possession of this subject matter as of the filing date. The closest support found in the specification for this limitation, is “This comparison may provide information to refine the positions and orientations (poses) of the vehicle along the trajectory in the map.” (Specification [0007]) and “applying the transformation aligns positions of the vehicle along the trajectory and the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing features with the map.” [0010]. However, this does not support controlling the vehicle to move along an updated trajectory based on the transformation and revised position. [0007] is stating that the position and orientation data of the vehicle along the trajectory in the map is being updated, not that the physical vehicle position and orientation is being updated based on the comparison. [0010] is stating that the position data of the vehicle along the trajectory is being aligned with the position of the features in the map, not that the physical vehicle position is being updated based on the positions of the features. Additionally, the originally filed specification, drawings, and claims are silent on any sort of updated trajectory for the vehicle.
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 US-11346682 to Fasola et al (“Fasola”) in view of US-20190317239-A1 to Olsson et al (“Olsson”), further in view of US-20170010618-A1 to Shashua et. al. (“Shashua”).
Regarding claim 1, Fasola teaches a method for curating map data of a map using sensor data collected from a vehicle along a trajectory of the vehicle, comprising (Fasola Claim 1):
detecting at least one change in a first feature of the map at a determined position along the trajectory of the vehicle based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 502);
scanning sensor data from the one or more sensors of the vehicle along the trajectory of the vehicle to identify sensor data representing one or more existing map features on the map (Fasola col 11 lines 22-24);
determining a vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features based on the sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (Fasola Fig. 4B);
comparing the determined vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features to a map-based position of their corresponding one or more existing map features and determining a difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 504 & 506);
Fasola does not teach determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature based on one or more vehicle poses recorded along the trajectory. However, Olsson teaches determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions (Olson [0076] “The image tiles may be positioned satellite or aerial photographs or other images stitched together representing the Earth's surface”) of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 104, 105, & 107 and Figs. 1B-1D) and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation of the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107, Fig. 2A ref 206 & 208 and Fig. 3A ref 302 & 304) based on one or more vehicle poses recorded along the trajectory (Olsson [0075] “the position difference may also include an orientation measurement at that location wherein the orientation of the geographic feature at the original location is known or otherwise possible to be determined. When rotation data is applicable or able to be determined (e.g., orientation data is available at the geographic feature location in the base map and/or otherwise determined from images of the geographic feature), a rotation update may be determined.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fasola to incorporate the teachings of Olsson such that the method includes determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature based on one or more vehicle poses recorded along the trajectory. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Fasola as modified by Olsson does not teach that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, controlling the vehicle to execute an updated trajectory for the vehicle. However, Shashua teaches that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, controlling the vehicle to execute an updated trajectory for the vehicle (Shashua [0465] “Landmarks identified by vehicles 1205-1225 while the vehicles travel along road segment 1200 may be recorded in association with the target trajectory. The data of the target trajectories and landmarks may be continuously or periodically updated with new data received from other vehicles in subsequent drives.” and [0661] “Processing unit 110 may send control signals to steering system 240 to adjust rotation of the wheels of vehicle 200 so that heading direction 3730 may be aligned with steering direction 3740 and vehicle 200 may move from current location 3712 to target location 3714 when vehicle 200 is located off predetermined road model trajectory 3710.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Shashua to Fasola as modified by Olsson such that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, controlling the vehicle to execute an updated trajectory for the vehicle. Doing so would allow for the server to identify model changes, such as constructions, detours, new signs, removal of signs, etc. and update the model for providing autonomous navigation (Shashua [0435]).
Regarding claim 2, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fasola further discloses that applying the transformation aligns positions of the vehicle along the trajectory (Fasola col 11 lines 62-64). Olsson further discloses that applying the transformation aligns the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing features with the map (Olsson Fig. 3A ref 302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that applying the transformation aligns the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing features with the map. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Fasola as modified by Olsson teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Olsson further discloses that applying the transformation to the determined position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature comprises applying the transformation to the determined vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature in the map (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that applying the transformation to the determined position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature comprises applying the transformation to the determined vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature in the map. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Fasola further discloses that applying the transformation to the vehicle- centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature comprises determining, based on sensor data, whether at least one of a position, orientation, or size of the first feature has changed (Fasola col 7 lines 43-47). Olsson further discloses that upon detecting a change in at least one of a position, orientation, and size of the first feature, applying the transformation to the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain at least one of a revised position, orientation, and size of the first feature (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that upon detecting a change in at least one of a position, orientation, and size of the first feature, applying the transformation to the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain at one of a revised position, orientation, and size of the first feature. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Olsson further discloses updating at least one of the position, orientation and size of the first feature on the map to reflect the change (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that the method updates at least one of the position, orientation and size of the first feature on the map to reflect the change. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Olsson further discloses that determining a transformation, comprises determining a position offset between the vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features and the map-based position of the one or more existing map features (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Olsson to Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua such that determining a transformation, comprises determining a position offset between the vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features and the map-based position of the one or more existing map features. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fasola further discloses comparing the first feature to existing features on the map to determine if the first feature is a new feature (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 516, 520, and col 13 lines 45-49).
Regarding claim 8, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7. Fasola further discloses updating the map to include the new feature at the revised position (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 522).
Regarding claim 9, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fasola further discloses comparing a set of one or more vehicle-centric features to existing features on the map to determine if the first feature has been removed from along the trajectory and upon detection of removal of the first feature, updating the map to reflect removal of the feature (Fasola col 7 lines 27-47 and col 12 lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 10, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9. Fasola further discloses updating the map to remove the first feature from the map (Fasola col 7 lines 27-47 and col 12 lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 11, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Fasola further discloses that the first feature comprises at least one of a road sign and lane markings (Fasola col 6 lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 12, Fasola teaches a system for curating map data of a map using sensor data collected from a vehicle along a trajectory of the vehicle, comprising (Fasola Claim 8):
one or more processors configured to perform operations of (Fasola col 14 lines 17-34):
detecting at least one change in a first feature of the map at a determined position along the trajectory of the vehicle based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 502);
scanning sensor data from the one or more sensors of the vehicle along the trajectory of the vehicle to identify sensor data representing one or more existing map features on the map (Fasola col 11 lines 22-24);
determining a vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features based on the sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (Fasola Fig. 4B);
comparing the determined vehicle-centric position of the one or more existing map features to a map-based position of their corresponding one or more existing map features and determining a difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features (Fasola Fig. 5 ref 504 & 506);
Fasola does not teach determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features and applying the transformation to the vehicle-centric position of the first feature and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature based on one or more vehicle poses recorded along the trajectory. However, Olsson teaches determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions (Olson [0076] “The image tiles may be positioned satellite or aerial photographs or other images stitched together representing the Earth's surface”) of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 104, 105, & 107 and Figs. 1B-1D) and applying the transformation to the vehicle-centric position of the first feature and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation of the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature (Olsson Fig. 1A ref 105 & 107, Fig. 2A ref 206 & 208 and Fig. 3A ref 302 & 304) based on one or more vehicle poses recorded along the trajectory (Olsson [0075] “the position difference may also include an orientation measurement at that location wherein the orientation of the geographic feature at the original location is known or otherwise possible to be determined. When rotation data is applicable or able to be determined (e.g., orientation data is available at the geographic feature location in the base map and/or otherwise determined from images of the geographic feature), a rotation update may be determined.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fasola to incorporate the teachings of Olsson such that the method includes determining a transformation based on the determined difference between the vehicle-centric positions of the one or more existing map features and corresponding map-based positions of the one or more existing map features and applying the transformation to the map data to transform the map by transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature based on one or more vehicle poses recorded along the trajectory. Doing so would ensure accurate geographic feature positions and accurate maps (Olsson [0003]).
Fasola as modified by Olsson does not teach that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, controlling the vehicle to execute an updated trajectory for the vehicle. However, Shashua teaches that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, controlling the vehicle to execute an updated trajectory for the vehicle (Shashua [0465] “Landmarks identified by vehicles 1205-1225 while the vehicles travel along road segment 1200 may be recorded in association with the target trajectory. The data of the target trajectories and landmarks may be continuously or periodically updated with new data received from other vehicles in subsequent drives.” and [0661] “Processing unit 110 may send control signals to steering system 240 to adjust rotation of the wheels of vehicle 200 so that heading direction 3730 may be aligned with steering direction 3740 and vehicle 200 may move from current location 3712 to target location 3714 when vehicle 200 is located off predetermined road model trajectory 3710.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Shashua to Fasola as modified by Olsson such that based on the transformation to the vehicle-centric position and the revised position of the first feature, controlling the vehicle to execute an updated trajectory for the vehicle. Doing so would allow for the server to identify model changes, such as constructions, detours, new signs, removal of signs, etc. and update the model for providing autonomous navigation (Shashua [0435]).
Regarding claim 13, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 13 also recites analogous limitations to claim 2, which was disclosed by Fasola as modified by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13. Claim 14 also recites analogous limitations to claim 3, which was disclosed by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13. Claim 15 also recites analogous limitations to claim 4, which was disclosed by Fasola as modified by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 16, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 16 also recites analogous limitations to claim 5, which was disclosed by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 17 also recites analogous limitations to claim 6, which was disclosed by Olsson shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 18 also recites analogous limitations to claim 7, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 18. Claim 19 also recites analogous limitations to claim 8, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 20 also recites analogous limitations to claim 9, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 21, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 20. Claim 21 also recites analogous limitations to claim 10, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 22, Fasola as modified by Olsson and Shashua teach all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Claim 22 also recites analogous limitations to claim 11, which was disclosed by Fasola shown above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 04/27/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, new 112 claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action. The office acknowledges that the claim amendments would overcome the 101 but these amendments would lead to new subject matter not disclosed in the specification.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, even though applicant has amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using most of the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
Olsson does not disclose stitching the image tiles together based on vehicle poses, as recited in amended independent claim 1. Rather, Olsson merely discloses applying a translation vector to image tiles to combine image tiles appropriately. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Olsson does not disclose "transforming at least one of the position, size or orientation of the vehicle-centric position of the first feature to obtain a revised position of the first feature based on one or more vehicle poses recorded along the trajectory" as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Office Response:
The office respectfully disagrees and asserts that Olsson teaches stitching the image tiles together based on vehicle poses. Olsson [0075] discusses updating a rotation based on the orientation (pose) measurement from the satellites/drones (See above mapping), which are vehicle centric positions. Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights