DETAILED 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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on December 31, 2025.
Claims 1, 4, 14, 17, 17, 29, and 30 are currently amended.
Claims 1-30 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 31, 2025 have been fully considered. The outstanding 35 USC §112(f) claim interpretation is maintained for claim 10.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amended claims are still considered to be ineligible because the claim amendment, “generate a map point based on a quantization of the pose information and the obtained point” in claims 1, 14, 17, and 30 and the claim amendment, “wherein the quantization of the pose information is quantized into a predetermined number of directional ranges” in claims 4, 17, and 29 are considered to be an abstract idea that falls into the category of mental processes, as explained below.
The outstanding 35 USC §101 rejections are maintained but are revised based on Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. A new ground of rejection is made in view of Hsu, et al. (Publication US 2023/0033404 A1).
The outstanding 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn, in view of Applicant’s amendments. However, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of Applicant’s amendments as laid out in detail below.
Applicant states that, “the Office appears to reference some claim language followed by a general citation to entire paragraph(s) of a reference, with no explanation of how the reference is applied to the claim language. Plainly, no explanation of how the reference is applied to the claim language falls below a general explanation of how the reference is applied to the claim language. As such, this ‘lack of clear mapping makes it difficult for the [Applicant] to discern how the Examiner is reading the claim limitations on the corresponding features found in the cited references.’” See Applicant’s arguments in Response filed December 31, 2025 on page 10.
The Examiner respectfully, disagrees. The mapping of the application claim language was clearly mapped to exact paragraphs in the cited Reference paragraphs that disclose that particular claim limitation. In the current Office Action, there are text excerpts added from each of the cited paragraphs in its respective reference to further show the mapping between the claim limitations and the disclosure of the relevant reference.
Applicant further argues that, “while Kroepfl indicates that some sensor data may be used directly in the mapstream, Kroepfl does not address how the sensor data used directly in the map stream can be used along with pose information (quantized or not) to generate a map point.” See Response filed on January 31, 2025 page 11. The Examiner notes that Applicant does not give an explanation regarding how quantization of the pose information occurs and further why the Kroepfl reference does not disclose quantization of pose information.
Further, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. The Applicant is referring to the original claim limitation, “generate a map point based on a quantization of the obtained point”. The claim has been amended to now read, “generate a map point based on a quantization of the pose information and the obtained point.” The Examiner takes the position that Kroepfl discloses “generate a map point based on a quantization of the obtained point” in, at least paragraphs, [0070] and [0079]. Applicant’s specification states in [0081] “[i]n some cases, the map points in the NSL map may be quantized to help reduce a number of points in a map collected after multiple observations of the environment” and in [0090] “[a]fter detected points are uploaded, for example to a map server, the uploaded map points may be added to the NSL map layer based on one or more conditions. Examples of the one or more conditions may include … if there are multiple newly obtained map points for a particular grid cell in quantized NSL map layer which were missing in old map, then the newly obtained map points may be added to NSL layer”. Kroepfl discloses in [0070], “With respect to sensor data 102 such as LiDAR data, RADAR data, ultrasonic data, and/or the like, the points represented by the data may be voxelized such that duplicative points are removed and instead a volume is represented by the data. This may allow for a lower density of points to be encoded in the mapstream 210, while still including enough information for accurate and detailed map creation 106." The Examiner takes the position that this excerpt discloses specific points that are included in the LiDAR or RADAR or ultrasonic data go through a quantization, by being voxelized such that duplicative points are removed and instead a volume is represented by the data, which then is ultimately used as map data, in line with the disclosure in Applicant’s specification. Further, paragraph [0079] in Kroepfl discloses, "...the sensor data 102 may be converted to the 3D coordinate space with the vehicle 1500 at the origin." This gives a specific example of the vehicle at a particular map point, the vehicle at the origin.
Newly found reference, Hsu (Publication US 2023/0033404), as mentioned above, is used for its disclosure of the limitation, “… quantization of the pose information …”, as described in detail below.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. The outstanding 35 USC 102 rejection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. However, a modified 35 USC 103 rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
In claim 10, the claim limitations being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) are:
“means for obtaining a point”;
“means for obtaining pose information”;
“means for generating a map point”; and
“means for outputting the generated map point”.
The structure associated with these limitations is disclosed, at least in paragraphs [0036] (“one or more sensors…”), [0046] (“processor 164”), and [0048] (“wireless communication”) of the originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus.
Claim 14 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 27 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., an apparatus).
Claim 30 is directed to an apparatus.
Therefore, claims 1, 14, 27, and 30 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim (representing claims 14, 27, and 30) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus for localization, comprising:
at least one memory comprising instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
obtain a point corresponding to a target in an environment, the point indicating a location of the target in the environment, and wherein the point is a non-semantic point for use with a non-semantic layer of a map;
obtain pose information indicating a heading of the apparatus;
generate a map point based on a quantization of the obtained point; and
output the generated map point to a map server.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generate a map point based on a quantization of the obtained point” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus for localization, comprising:
at least one memory comprising instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
obtain a point corresponding to a target in an environment, the point indicating a location of the target in the environment, and wherein the point is a non-semantic point for use with a non-semantic layer of a map;
obtain pose information indicating a heading of the apparatus;
generate a map point based on a quantization of the pose information and the obtained point; and
output the generated map point to a map server.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “at least one memory comprising instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:” they merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose navigation environment. The at least one processor and communicatively connected memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the abstract idea steps.
Regarding the additional limitation of, “obtain a point corresponding to a target in an environment, the point indicating a location of the target in the environment, and wherein the point is a non-semantic point for use with a non-semantic layer of a map”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely gather data to perform updating a map. In particular, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitation of, “output the generated map point to a map server” is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “generate a map point based on a quantization of the pose information and the obtained point” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “at least one memory comprising instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtain a point corresponding to a target in an environment, the point indicating a location of the target in the environment, and wherein the point is a non-semantic point for use with a non-semantic layer of a map; obtain pose information indicating a heading of the apparatus; and output the generated map point to a map server”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-30 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroepfl, et al. (Publication US 2021/0063200 A1), in view of Hsu, et al. (Publication US 2023/0033404 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Kroepfl” and “Hsu”.)
As per claim 1 (representative of claims 14, 27, and 30), Kroepfl discloses an apparatus for localization, comprising:
at least one memory comprising instructions {see at least Kroepfl [0074] "...various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory."}; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to {see at least Kroepfl [0074] "...various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory."}:
obtain a point corresponding to a target in an environment {see at least Kroepfl [0058] "The DNNs 202 may process the sensor data 102 to generate detections of lane markings, road boundaries, signs, poles, trees, static objects, vehicles and/or other dynamic objects, wait conditions, intersections, distances, depths, dimensions of objects, etc. For example, the detections may correspond to locations (e.g., in 2D image space, in 3D space, etc.), geometry, pose, semantic information, and/or other information about the detection."; [0075] "FIG. 3 is a flow diagram showing a method 300 for mapstream generation, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. The method 300, at block B302, includes generating sensor data using sensors of the vehicle."},
the point indicating a location of the target in the environment {see at least Kroepfl [0077] "...the outputs may include, without limitation, lane divider information, road boundary information, static object information, dynamic object information, wait condition information, intersection information, sign, pole, or traffic light information, and/or other information corresponding to objects—static and/or dynamic—in an environment of the vehicle 1500."},
and wherein the point is a non-semantic point for use with a non-semantic layer of a map {see at least Kroepfl [0045] "The process 100 may include operations for mapstream generation 104, map creation 106, and localization 110. For example, the process 100 may be executed as part of an end-to-end system that relies on mapstreams generated using sensor data 102 from any of a number of vehicles 1500 over any number of drives, map creation 106 using the received mapstream data from the vehicles 1500, and localization 110 to a map(s) (e.g., a high definition (HD) map) generated using the map creation 106 process." ... the map data 108 may represent a first map (or map layer) corresponding to image-based localization, a second map (or map layer) corresponding to LiDAR-based localization, a third map (or map layer) corresponding to RADAR-based localization, and so on. In some embodiments, the image-based localization, for example, may be performed using a first map (or map layer) corresponding to a forward facing camera and a second map (which may or may not be corresponding to the same map layer) corresponding to a rear facing camera, and so on.; [0050] "The sensor data 102, as described herein, may correspond to sensor data 102 from any number of different sensor modalities and/or of any number of sensors of a single modality."; [0085] "Each mapstream 210, as described herein, may include various layers of data generated using various different methods—such as by tracking ego-motion (e.g., relative and global), sensor data 102 generation and processing, perception using one or more DNNs 202, etc. Each layer of the mapstream 210 may correspond to a series of frames corresponding to sensor events recorded at variable frame rates."; [0086] "The base conversion 506 may correspond to the landmarks—e.g., lane lines, road boundary lines, signs, poles, trees, other vertical structures or objects, crosswalks, etc.—as determined using perception via the DNN(s) 202. For example, the 3D landmark locations may be converted—using base conversion 506—to a map format to generate base layer 520 (or “camera layer” or “perception layer”) of the map 504(1)."};
obtain pose information indicating a heading of the apparatus {see at least Kroepfl [0053] "may be used to track movement (e.g., rotation and translation) of the vehicle 1500 at each frame or time step. The trajectory or ego-motion of the vehicle 1500 may be used to generate a trajectory layer of the mapstream 210."};
generate a map point based on a quantization of … the obtained point {see at least Kroepfl [0070] "With respect to sensor data 102 such as LiDAR data, RADAR data, ultrasonic data, and/or the like, the points represented by the data may be voxelized such that duplicative points are removed and instead a volume is represented by the data. This may allow for a lower density of points to be encoded in the mapstream 210, while still including enough information for accurate and detailed map creation 106.", [0079] "...the sensor data 102 may be converted to the 3D coordinate space with the vehicle 1500 at the origin."}; and
output the generated map point to a map server {see at least Kroepfl [0064] "the sensor data 102 and the outputs 204 may be generated at all times and for each frame, and all of the data may be transmitted as the mapstream 210 to the map creation cloud or servers."; [0081] "The mapstream 210 may then be transmitted to the cloud for map creation 106.", [0085] "The map creation process 106 may include receiving the mapstreams 210 from one or more vehicles 1500 corresponding to any number of drives. Each mapstream 210, as described herein, may include various layers of data generated using various different methods"; [0086] "With reference to FIG. 5A, the map creation process 106 may include, for each mapstream 210(1)-210(N)—where N corresponds to the number of mapstreams 210 being used for a particular registration process-converting the mapstream 210 via conversion 502(1)-502(N), to a map 504(1)-504(N) "; [0087] "the RADAR point cloud from the RADAR point cloud layer 522 may be used to generate a RADAR maps image layer 524 via RADAR maps image creation 514. "; [0088] "The LiDAR data from the mapstream 210(1)—e.g., when received or accessed in a raw format—may be converted to a LiDAR point cloud layer 526 via LiDAR conversion 512."}.
Kropefl fails to disclose … quantization of the pose information … . However, Hsu teaches this limitation [see at least Hsu [0060] "the step of generating the SWM [sliding window map] includes obtaining a local map from a LiDAR scan-matching based on the 3D point clouds from the 3D LiDAR sensor; and adopting an orientation from the AHRS [altitude and heading reference system] to transform the SWM from a body frame to a local East North Up (ENU) frame."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in Kroepfl to use … quantization of the pose information … as disclosed in Hsu with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the overall positioning accuracy. [See at least Hsu [0081].]
As per claim 3 (representative of claim 16), Kroepfl discloses … wherein the map server comprises a remote server {see at least Kroepfl [0064] "the sensor data 102 and the outputs 204 may be generated at all times and for each frame, and all of the data may be transmitted as the mapstream 210 to the map creation cloud or servers."}.
As per claim 4 (representative of claims 17 and 29),
Kroepfl fails to disclose … wherein the quantization of the pose information is quantized into a predetermined number of directional ranges. However, Hsu teaches this limitation [see at least Hsu {0060] "the step of generating the SWM [sliding window map] includes obtaining a local map from a LiDAR scan-matching based on the 3D point clouds from the 3D LiDAR sensor; and adopting an orientation from the AHRS [altitude and heading reference system] to transform the SWM from a body frame to a local East North Up (ENU) frame."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in Kroepfl to use … wherein the quantization of the pose information is quantized into a predetermined number of directional ranges as disclosed in Hsu with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the overall positioning accuracy. [See at least Hsu [0081].]
As per claim 6 (representative of claim 19), Kroepfl discloses … wherein the at least one processor is further configured to obtain an indication of a road on which the apparatus is located, and wherein the map point includes the indication of the road on which the apparatus is located {see at least Kroepfl [0006] "...because the relative trajectory information corresponding to each drive is tracked, this information may be used to generate individual road segments (e.g., 25 meter, 50 meter, etc. sized road segments) that may be localized to, thereby allowing for localization accuracy within the centimeter range."; [0077] "the DNN(s) 202 may compute the output(s) 204 and, in one or more embodiments, the outputs may include, without limitation, lane divider information, road boundary information, static object information, dynamic object information, wait condition information, intersection information, sign, pole, or traffic light information, and/or other information corresponding to objects—static and/or dynamic—in an environment of the vehicle 1500."}.
As per claim 7 (representative of claim 20), Kroepfl discloses … wherein the at least one processor is further configured to obtain an indication of a lane of the road on which the apparatus is located, and wherein the map point includes the indication of the lane of the road on which the apparatus is located {see at least Kroepfl [0006] "...because the relative trajectory information corresponding to each drive is tracked, this information may be used to generate individual road segments (e.g., 25 meter, 50 meter, etc. sized road segments) that may be localized to, thereby allowing for localization accuracy within the centimeter range."; [0058] "...the DNNs 202 may process the sensor data 102 to generate detections of lane markings, road boundaries, signs, poles, trees, static objects, vehicles and/or other dynamic objects, wait conditions, intersections, distances, depths, dimensions of objects, etc. For example, the detections may correspond to locations (e.g., in 2D image space, in 3D space, etc.), geometry, pose, semantic information, and/or other information about the detection. As such, for lane lines, locations of the lane lines and/or types of the lane lines (e.g., dashed, solid, yellow, white, crosswalk, bike lane, etc.) may be detected by a DNN(s) 202 processing the sensor data 102. "}.
As per claim 9 (representative of claim 22), Kroepfl discloses … wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output the generated map point based on a location of the apparatus {see at least Kroepfl [0068] "a history of the trajectory may be used to extrapolate future points in the trajectory. ", [0077] "the DNN(s) 202 may compute the output(s) 204 and, in one or more embodiments, the outputs may include, without limitation, lane divider information, road boundary information, static object information, dynamic object information, wait condition information, intersection information, sign, pole, or traffic light information, and/or other information corresponding to objects—static and/or dynamic—in an environment of the vehicle 1500."}.
As per claim 10 (representative of claim 23), Kroepfl discloses … wherein, to output the generated map point, the at least one processor is configured to:
determine that the apparatus is not within a threshold amount of time of a beginning or end of a trip {see at least Kroepfl [0066] "instead of including every frame in the mapstream 210, a distance threshold, a time threshold, or a combination thereof may be used to determine which frames to include in the mapstream 210. … This distance or time thresholds may be used based on which is met first, or which is met last."}; and
output the generated map point based on the determination that the apparatus is not within the threshold amount of time of the beginning or the end of the trip {see at least Kroepfl [0067] "...As a result, the amount of data to be transmitted from the vehicle 1500 to the cloud for map creation 106 is reduced, while not impacting the accuracy of the map creation process—e.g., because at least some of the data may be duplicative or only incrementally different and thus not necessary for accurate map creation."}.
As per claim 11 (representative of claim 24), Kroepfl discloses … wherein the apparatus is associated with a trace identifier, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that the apparatus is not within a threshold amount of time of a beginning or end of a trip {see at least Kroepfl [0066] "instead of including every frame in the mapstream 210, a distance threshold, a time threshold, or a combination thereof may be used to determine which frames to include in the mapstream 210. … This distance or time thresholds may be used based on which is met first, or which is met last."}; and
output the trace identifier along with the generated map point based on the determination that the apparatus is not within the threshold amount of time of the beginning or the end of the trip {see at least Kroepfl [0068] "In addition to, or alternatively from, sending less data (e.g., minimizing the amount of data) in the mapstreams 210, the data may be compressed, in embodiments—e.g., to reduce bandwidth and decrease run-time. In some embodiments, extrapolation and/or interpolation may be used to determine points or frames such that less points or frames (e.g., the rotation/translation information of the points or frames) need to be transmitted in the mapstream 210 and extrapolation and/or interpolation may be used to generate additional frames or points. For example, because the rotation and translation information may be data intensive—e.g., require lots of bits to fully encode the (x, y, z) location information and the x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis rotation information—the less points along the trajectory that need rotation and/or translation information encoded thereto the less data needs to be transmitted."}.
As per claim 12 (representative of claim 25), Kroepfl discloses … wherein, to output the generated map point, the at least one processor is configured to:
determine that the apparatus is not within a threshold distance of a beginning or end of a trip {see at least Kroepfl [0066] In some examples, the system may minimize how often a trajectory point or frame is generated and/or included in the mapstream 210. For example, instead of including every frame in the mapstream 210, a distance threshold, a time threshold, or a combination thereof may be used to determine which frames to include in the mapstream 210.}; and
output the generated map point based on the determination that the apparatus is not within the threshold distance of the beginning or the end of the trip {see at least Kroepfl "[0066] if a certain distance (e.g., half a meter, one meter, two meters, five meters, ten meters, etc.) has been travelled by the vehicle 1500 and/or a certain amount of time has elapsed (e.g., half a second, a second, two seconds, etc.), a trajectory point or frame may be included in the mapstream. This distance or time thresholds may be used based on which is met first, or which is met last. For example, a first frame may be included in the mapstream 210, then a distance threshold may be met and a second frame at the distance threshold may be included in the mapstream 210."}.
As per claim 13 (representative of claim 26), Kroepfl discloses … wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output the generated map point based on a speed of the apparatus {see at least Kroepfl [0066] "if a certain distance (e.g., half a meter, one meter, two meters, five meters, ten meters, etc.) has been travelled by the vehicle 1500 and/or a certain amount of time has elapsed (e.g., half a second, a second, two seconds, etc.), a trajectory point or frame may be included in the mapstream.", [0067] "where a vehicle 1500 is traveling at a speed of one meter/second (or 2.24 miles per hour), the distance threshold is two meters, and the frame rate is 30 fps, instead of including 60 (e.g., 30*2) frames in the mapstream 210 during the two meter distance, only a single frame may be included in the mapstream 210."}.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2, 15, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroepfl, in view of Hsu, and Wang, et al. (Publication US 2018/0216942 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Wang”.)
As per claim 2 (representative of claim 15 and 28), Kroepfl discloses … wherein the map point includes the location of the target … {see at least Koepfl [0068] "a history of the trajectory may be used to extrapolate future points in the trajectory. "}.
The combination of Koepfl and Hsu fails to disclose …wherein the map point includes … the pose information. However, Wang teaches this limitation {see at least Wang [0033] “Map data include localization data and pose information of data collection vehicles at different points in time.”}.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in the combination of Kroepfl and Hsu to use …wherein the map point includes … the pose information as disclosed in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved system responsiveness. [See at least Wang [0093].]
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroepfl, in view of Hsu, and Andreopoulos (Publication US 2018/0204114 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Andreopoulos”.)
As per claim 5 (representative of claim 18), the combination of Kroepfl and Hsu fails to disclose … wherein the predetermined number of direction ranges comprises four directional quadrants. However, Andreopoulos teaches this limitation {see at least Andreopoulos [0039] "… multiscale map search which helps with the localization of the centroids of regions of interest, and a quadrant selection mechanism that addresses the problem of outputting a pyramid of increasingly larger topographic map subsets making it useful for processing regions of interest which do not fit in a single sized patch (such as large objects in the case of vision)."}.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in the combination of Kroepfl and Hsu to use … wherein the predetermined number of direction ranges comprises four directional quadrants as disclosed in Andreopoulos with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more efficient mapping. [See at least Andreopoulos [0032].]
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroepfl, in view of Hsu, Wang, and Temple.
As per claim 8 (representative of claim 21), the combination of Kroepfl and Hsu fails to disclose … wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a bin of a sensor space where the point is located, wherein the bin is a portion of the sensor space; and determine a bin location within the bin where the point is located. However, Wang teaches these limitations:
… wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a bin of a sensor space where the point is located, wherein the bin is a portion of the sensor space {see at least Wang [0072] “ADV 503 may generate subsequent localization map versions from its sensor data based on hardware positioning methods such as GPS/IMU and/or RTK. ADV 503 may generate a first localization map version based on only a confidence score from determining consistency of a collected real-time pose.”}; and
determine a bin location within the bin where the point is located {see at least Wang [0065] "FIG. 4A illustrates and ADV surrounded by an ADV coarse search space 410 and ADV fine search space of candidate cells 420 to use for searching an HD map to determine the location of the ADV with respect to the HD map"; [0067] "Fine search module 301C can determine a fine search candidate space 420 surrounding the candidate cell 415 having the highest similarity metric."}.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in the combination of Kroepfl and Hsu to use … wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a bin of a sensor space where the point is located, wherein the bin is a portion of the sensor space; and determine a bin location within the bin where the point is located as disclosed in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved system responsiveness. [See at least Wang [0093].]
The combination of Kroepfl, Hsu, and Wang fails to disclose … encode the location of the target in the map point based on the determined bin and determined bin location. However, Temple teaches this limitation {see at least Temple [0050] “the sensor polar encoding module 105 may further accumulate or bin the sensor data 112 into a fixed size representation of the sensor data 112 to generate the sensor POV data 122, such that the at least one sensor encoding neural network 120 can operate on the sensor POV data 122 to generate the polar feature vector 124.”}.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in the combination of Kroepfl, Hsu, and Wang to use … encode the location of the target in the map point based on the determined bin and determined bin location as disclosed in Temple with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved obtaining of information about objects in a region of interest. [See at least Temple [0035].]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights