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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/05/2023, 05/30/2024, and 06/24/2025 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
NOTE: In order to promote compact prosecution, prior art will be applied for all claim limitations as appropriate, even when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) does not include certain contingent limitations present in method claims. However, this should not be taken as an acknowledgement that the BRI and therefore the scope of method claims with such contingent limitations are narrower than as discussed below.
Regarding claim 4, the method claim contains recitation(s) contingent upon (in response to) “the first number being inconsistent with the second number”. However, this recitation is not required to carry out the claimed invention (i.e. the numbers can be equal) and according to MPEP 2111.04, II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See also Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Therefore, the BRI of claim 4 would not require the following limitation(s) when the number of traffic numbers are equal:
“determining a smaller one of the first number and the second number as a target number; and
deleting a traffic marking from the target marking set or the marking set to be fused, to enable a number of the traffic markings in the target marking set and a number of the traffic markings in the marking set to be fused to be the target number”.
In other words, prior art would teach claim 4 as long as it teaches “determining a first number of traffic markings in the target marking set and a second number of traffic markings in the marking set to be fused” and a scenario where the first and second numbers are consistent.
A way to overcome this would be to amend the claim as follows:
“determining the first number is inconsistent with the second number;[[,]]
determining a smaller one of the first number and the second number as a target number; and
deleting a traffic marking from the target marking set or the marking set to be fused, to enable a number of the traffic markings in the target marking set and a number of the traffic markings in the marking set to be fused to be the target number”.
Claims 5 and 6, which depend on claim 4, further modify the scenario where the first and second numbers are inconsistent. Therefore, if the prior art teaches claim 4 with a scenario where the numbers are consistent, then that prior art will automatically teach claims 5 and 6 as the BRI would not require a scenario where the numbers are inconsistent (claim 6 in it of itself also has alternative contingent limitations, but BRI would still not require these steps as with above).
NOTE: Claims 18-20 is/are an apparatus and therefore the BRI of the claim(s) would require structure capable of performing the contingent limitation(s) (see MPEP 2111.04, II, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, the method claim contains recitation(s) contingent upon (in response to) “the target intersection area being less than the reference intersection area”. However, this recitation is not required to carry out the claimed invention (i.e. the target intersection area can be greater than or equal to the reference intersection area). Therefore, the BRI of claim 10 does not require the following limitation(s) when the target intersection area is greater than or equal to the reference intersection area:
“stopping translating the second transformed marking set in the specified direction; and
after a translation operation on the second transformed marking set is stopped, taking a translation parameter of an intermediate position relative to the initial position as the first translation parameter, wherein the intersection area of the second bounding rectangle corresponding to the second transformed marking set at the intermediate position and the first bounding rectangle is maximum in a historical translation process”.
Furthermore, claim 11 which depends on claim 10 gives a scenario when the target intersection area is larger than the reference intersection area. If the prior art teaches claim 10 with a scenario comprising target intersection area being less than or equal to the intersection area, then that prior art will automatically teach claim 11 since it gives an alternative scenario to final clauses of claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Selviah et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0043186.
Regarding claim 16, Selviah teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a memory with a computer program stored thereon; and a processor, configured to execute the computer program in the memory (see Selviah claim 38) to perform the following:
obtaining a first local part overlapped with a marking set to be fused from a target marking set (see Figure 3, first input image into 3D image acquisition unit 12 and paragraph [0164]. The images can be of road markings per paragraph [0127], “An example is a self-driving car which can scan the curb or white lines or yellow lines on a road and paving slab edges and wall planes and edges, and so align narrow non-overlapping scans”) and a second local part overlapped with the target marking set from the marking set to be fused (see Figure 3, second input image input into 3D image acquisition unit 12 and paragraph [0234]);
based on a target transformation relationship, generating a first transformed marking set transformed from the first local part and a second transformed marking set transformed from the second local part (see Figure 4 which shows the parallel processing of the input images of Figure 1 via points clouds “CoP” per paragraph [0233], steps s106-s107);
determining a first translation parameter capable of fusing the second transformed marking set with the first transformed marking set (see Figure 4, s108 and paragraph [0334] and [0339]);
determining a second translation parameter by using the first translation parameter based on the target transformation relationship; and
moving the marking set to be fused by using the second translation parameter (see Figure 4, s109 and paragraph [0347]).
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 16, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, Selviah teaches all the limitations of claim 16, and further teaches wherein the target transformation relationship enables the second local part after transformation to be perpendicular to a specified coordinate axis (see Selviah Figure 4, s017 and paragraphs [0331]-[0332]).
Regarding claim 2, Selviah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches determining the marking set to be fused corresponding to the target marking set (see Selviah Figure 4, images s101 and paragraph [0234]), wherein the target marking set and the marking set to be fused are both taken from marking sets of road data, and each marking set includes a group of the traffic markings (see Selviah paragraph [0127], “An example is a self-driving car which can scan the curb or white lines or yellow lines on a road and paving slab edges and wall planes and edges, and so align narrow non-overlapping scans”).
Method claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 21, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, Selviah teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the target transformation relationship is obtained by an affine transformation (see Selvian Figure 4, s106 wherein rotation is well-known to be an affine transformation).
Regarding claim 13, Selviah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the traffic markings are lane lines (see Selviah paragraph [0127], “An example is a self-driving car which can scan the curb or white lines or yellow lines on a road and paving slab edges and wall planes and edges, and so align narrow non-overlapping scans”).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selviah et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0043186 in view of Hirate et al, WO 2019/20308 A1 (citations given to U.S. Publication No. 2021/0041263 which is an official translation).
Regarding claim 4, Selvia teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein before obtaining the first local part overlapped with the marking set to be fused from the target marking set and the second local part overlapped with the target marking set from the marking set to be fused, the method further comprises:
determining a first number of traffic markings in the target marking set and a second number of traffic markings in the marking set to be fused;
in response to the first number being inconsistent with the second number, determining a smaller one of the first number and the second number as a target number; and
deleting a traffic marking from the target marking set or the marking set to be fused, to enable a number of the traffic markings in the target marking set and a number of the traffic markings in the marking set to be fused to be the target number.
However, Hirate in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of analyzing data from a marking set to be fused and a target marking set (see Hirate Figure 1, image lane structure unit 21a and map lane structure unit 21b) as taught in Selvia wherein before the analyzing occurs the method comprises
determining a first number of traffic markings in the target marking set and a second number of traffic markings in the marking set to be fused [and wherein the first and second number of traffic markings are consistent] (see paragraph [0054]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of determining a number of markings in two sets as taught in Hirate with the method taught in Selvia, the motivation being to ensure proper fusion of the data.
The remainder of claim 4 as well as claims 5 and 6 are thereby taught by Selvia in view of Hirate given the interpretation above.
Regarding claim 18, Selvia teaches all the limitations of claim 16, but does not expressively teach wherein before obtaining the first local part overlapped with the marking set to be fused from the target marking set and the second local part overlapped with the target marking set from the marking set to be fused, the method further comprises:
determining a first number of traffic markings in the target marking set and a second number of traffic markings in the marking set to be fused;
in response to the first number being inconsistent with the second number, determining a smaller one of the first number and the second number as a target number; and
deleting a traffic marking from the target marking set or the marking set to be fused, to enable a number of the traffic markings in the target marking set and a number of the traffic markings in the marking set to be fused to be the target number.
However, Hirate in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of analyzing data from a marking set to be fused and a target marking set (see Hirate Figure 1, image lane structure unit 21a and map lane structure unit 21b) as taught in Selvia wherein before the analyzing occurs the method comprises
determining a first number of traffic markings in the target marking set and a second number of traffic markings in the marking set to be fused (see paragraph [0054]);
in response to the first number being inconsistent with the second number, determining a smaller one of the first number and the second number as a target number; and deleting a traffic marking from the target marking set or the marking set to be fused, to enable a number of the traffic markings in the target marking set and a number of the traffic markings in the marking set to be fused to be the target number (see paragraphs [0039]-[0040], wherein the image can indicate that fewer lanes are present which will lead to the map being updated).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of determining a number of markings in two sets as taught in Hirate with the method taught in Selvia, the motivation being to ensure proper fusion of the data.
Method claim 4 in this interpretation recites similar limitations as claim 18, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9-12, 19, 20, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 6 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and claim 4 were rewritten with the suggestion above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635