DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues at p.10 of applicant’s remarks that Giorgio does not teach “a creation of any (first) occupancy grid that is based on map data (stored in a storage device) and localization data of a vehicle, and a fusion of such first occupancy grid that is created from the map data and localization data to another (second) occupancy grid created based on at least one of image data or geometric data, specifically to create a resulting (third) occupancy grid.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection below, Giorgio teaches the creation of a first occupancy grid that is based on map data and localization data of a vehicle [Giorgio ¶-41, 92-94 – stored map data, GPS detected positions]. Giorgio teaches creation of a second occupancy grid that is based on image or geometric data [Giorgio ¶-41, 92-94 – The current sensor data, Lidar or camera data, is combined with the previous grid map]. Giorgio also teaches creation of a third occupancy grid, based on fusing the first occupancy grid and the second occupancy grid [Giorgio ¶-112, 123 - Once the occupancy grid maps for each sensor are completed, they are fused together into at least one fused occupancy grid map with confidence values], each cell of the third occupancy grid representing a confidence of the surrounding environment being drivable [Giorgio ¶-45].
Applicant further argues that, “indicating a probability of the cell having an obstacle or being free, as in Giorgio, does not suggest that any cell represents a confidence of surrounding environment actually being drivable.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Indicating a probability of the cell having an obstacle or being free does in fact represent a confidence of the environment being drivable. If a cell has an obstacle present, that obstacle must be avoided by the vehicle. The system of Giorgio uses the grid map in order to determine drivable spaces based on the likelihood of obstacles in cells of the grid map. [Giorgio ¶-3, 17, 117]
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 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, 8-10, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giorgio et al (US 20210131823 A1 thereafter "Giorgio").
As to claim 1, Giorgio disclose(s) a drive device comprising:
a processor configured to:
obtain map data stored in a storage device; receive localization data of a vehicle; [Automated and assisted driving are disclosed [See ¶-45]. A previous map (map data) is stored, and GPS detected positions (localization data) are received [See ¶-41, 92]] receive at least one of image data or geometric data indicating a surrounding of the vehicle; [Lidar and camera sensor data may be received [See ¶-41, 247-249]] create, based on the map data and the localization data, a first occupancy grid, each cell of the first occupancy grid represents a first confidence of surrounding environment being drivable; [The current sensor data is combined with the previous grid map [See ¶-92-94]. Each cell of the grid map represents the probability that it is occupied/free [See ¶-95-98]. This may be performed with the GPS/GIS data, and previous grid map [See ¶-41, 94]] create, based on at least one of the image data or the geometric data, a second occupancy grid, each cell of the second occupancy grid represents a second confidence of the surrounding environment being drivable, [The current sensor data is combined with the previous grid map [See ¶-92-94]. Each cell of the grid map represents the probability that it is occupied/free [See ¶-95-98]. This may be performed with the Lidar or camera data, and previous grid map [See ¶-41, 94]] create, based on fusing the first occupancy grid and the second occupancy grid, a third occupancy grid, each cell of the third occupancy grid represents a third confidence of the surrounding environment being drivable, wherein the third confidence is based on the first confidence and the second confidence; [Once the occupancy grid maps for each sensor are completed, they are fused together into at least one fused occupancy grid map with confidence values [See ¶-112, 123]] generate driving signals for automated driving or assisted driving based on the third occupancy grid; and output the driving signals to the vehicle to activate the automated driving of the assisted driving based on the third occupancy grid. [The fused occupancy grid map is used to allow the vehicle to self drive [See ¶-40, 45, 47]]
As to claim(s) 2, the claim(s) is/are directed to a vehicle system analogous to the system performing the method of claim(s) 1 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 8, Giorgio disclose(s) the drive device or the vehicle of claims 1 or 2, wherein the processor is configured to: create the third occupancy grid by computing an average of the first and second confidences. [Giorgio, The separate sensor occupancy grid maps are combined with equal weights [See ¶-123-125], thus providing an average]
As to claim 9, Giorgio disclose(s) the drive device or the vehicle of claims 1 or 2, of claims 1 or 2, wherein the processor is configured to: create the third occupancy grid by using Bayes rule; and to compute a likelihood of the second confidence being true by using map-matching algorithms with the first occupancy grid. [Giorgio, The fused occupancy map is generated using Bayesian Occupancy Filter (Bayes rule) [See ¶-113-122]. The system computes discrepancies between the individual sensor occupancy maps [See ¶-152-160]. Accordingly, each cell will have a discrepancy value thus indicating likelihood of being true]
As to claim(s) 10, 14, 15 the claim(s) is/are directed to a method analogous to the system performing the method of claim(s) 1, 8, 9 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale.
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 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) 3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giorgio et al (US 20210131823 A1 thereafter "Giorgio"), in view of Sonoura (US 20180267540 A1), in view of Jones et al (US 20190213438 A1 thereafter "Jones").
As to claim 3, Giorgio disclose(s) the drive device or the vehicle of claims 1 or 2, wherein the processor is configured to: create the first confidence calculated based on a localization accuracy of the localization data [Giorgio, The grid map is generated based on the accuracy of the sensor data [See ¶-123]] However, Giorgio do(es) not disclose "an update date of the map data; and create the second confidence based on an uncertainty of processing a semantic segmentation of the image data." On the other hand, Sonoura discloses "an update date of the map data." Sonoura discloses a system wherein the clock time of a grid map is used to determine other occupancy grid maps [See ¶-67-68]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giorgio's occupancy mapping system to incorporate the teachings of Sonoura's grid map clock time. Motivation to do so would be to improve the determination of an object's position based on the update time, as taught by Sonoura [See ¶-106, 114]. However, Giorgio, Sonoura do(es) not disclose " create the second confidence based on an uncertainty of processing a semantic segmentation of the image data." On the other hand, Jones discloses " create the second confidence based on an uncertainty of processing a semantic segmentation of the image data." Jones discloses a system wherein an occupancy grid (second confidence) may is generated based on the confidence of object detection (semantic segmentation); in terms of both the type of object and presence of an object [See ¶-123, 186-189]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giorgio's occupancy mapping system, Sonoura's grid map clock time to incorporate the teachings of Jones' recognition confidence occupancy scoring. Motivation to do so would be to improve the accuracy of object detection over time, as taught by Jones [See ¶-67].
As to claim(s) 11 the claim(s) is/are directed to a method analogous to the system performing the method of claim(s) 3 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giorgio et al (US 20210131823 A1 thereafter "Giorgio"), in view of Dake et al (US 20230144543 A1 thereafter "Dake").
As to claim 4, Giorgio do(es) not disclose "wherein a first resolution of the first occupancy grid is different from a second resolution of the second occupancy grid, and wherein the processor is configured to: modify a lower resolution of the first or the second occupancy grids so as to match the resolution of a higher resolution of the first and second occupancy grids; and fuse the first and second occupancy grids subsequent to the modification." On the other hand, Dake discloses "wherein a first resolution of the first occupancy grid is different from a second resolution of the second occupancy grid, and wherein the processor is configured to: modify a lower resolution of the first or the second occupancy grids so as to match the resolution of a higher resolution of the first and second occupancy grids; and fuse the first and second occupancy grids subsequent to the modification." Dake discloses receiving different levels of resolution object maps from sensors [See ¶-63-64]. The object maps (first/second occupancy grids) may be combined by adjusting the grid width of a first map having lower resolution to a higher resolution matching the higher resolution map [See ¶-6-7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giorgio's occupancy mapping system to incorporate the teachings of Dake's varying map resolution merging. Motivation to do so would be in order to enable the combining of a high resolution map with a wide area map, as taught by Dake [See ¶-5-6].
As to claim 5, Giorgio, Dake disclose(s) the drive device or the vehicle according to claim 4, wherein the first resolution of the first occupancy grid is lower than the second resolution of the second occupancy grid, and wherein the processor is configured to: modify the first resolution of the first occupancy grid so as to match the second resolution of the second occupancy grid. [Dake, receiving different levels of resolution object maps from sensors [See ¶-63-64]. The object maps (first/second occupancy grids) may be combined by adjusting the grid width of a first map having lower resolution to a higher resolution matching the higher resolution map [See ¶-6-7]]
As to claim(s) 12-13 the claim(s) is/are directed to a method analogous to the system performing the method of claim(s) 4-5 respectively, and is/are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giorgio et al (US 20210131823 A1 thereafter "Giorgio"), in view of Kawasaki (US 20210383213 A1).
As to claim 6, Giorgio do(es) not disclose "wherein missing values of the first and second confidences are set between a maximum value of the first and second confidences and a minimum value of the first and second confidences, and wherein the processor is configured to: set the first or second missing confidence values to a predetermined value between the maximum value and the minimum value." On the other hand, Kawasaki discloses "wherein missing values of the first and second confidences are set between a maximum value of the first and second confidences and a minimum value of the first and second confidences, and wherein the processor is configured to: set the first or second missing confidence values to a predetermined value between the maximum value and the minimum value." Kawasaki discloses the generation of an obstacle map based on occupancy with a detected object(s) [See ¶-64, 66]. Cells that are unknown may be set to 0.5 which is the average of the min (0) and max (1) [See ¶-65, 92]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giorgio's occupancy mapping system to incorporate the teachings of Kawasaki's missing cell default value. Motivation to do so would be to improve the prediction accuracy of object movement and the environment map, as taught by Kawasaki [See ¶-95].
As to claim 7, Giorgio, Kawasaki disclose(s) the drive device or the vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the predetermined value is an average of the maximum value and the minimum value. [Kawasaki, generation of an obstacle map based on occupancy with a detected object(s) [See ¶-64, 66]. Cells that are unknown may be set to 0.5 which is the average of the min (0) and max (1) [See ¶-65, 92]]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights