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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on Feb 6, 2026, and Drawings filed on Feb 6, 2026.
2. Claims 1–9, 16-26 are pending in this case. Claim 1, 16, 21 are independent claims.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-9, 16-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “selecting a landmark associated with one or more first landmark pairs, within a set of first track data, and one or more second landmark pairs, associated with a set of second track data for a region;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “comparing at least a subset of the one or more first landmark pairs and the one or more second landmark pairs associated with the landmark;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “determining that a number of corresponding first landmark pairs and second landmark pairs exceeds a correspondence threshold;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “identifying the landmark as corresponding to both the first set of first track data and the second set of second track data;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “and providing the identified landmark for use in one or more operations relating to an environment in which an object corresponding to the landmark is located.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “representing a landmark pair segment as an edge between nodes in a landmark graph representing the landmark in the first set of track data and the landmark in the second set of track data; and determining a common frame of reference between the first set of track data and the second set of track data based, at least, on the edge.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the first set of track data is acquired by a first sensor-equipped machine and the second set of track data is acquired by a second sensor-equipped machine operating in the environment.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the first set of track data is acquired by a first sensor-equipped machine and the second set of track data is acquired by a second sensor-equipped machine operating in the environment.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). (“The collecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering network traffic data for use in the comparison step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.”).
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the first set of track data is at least partially overlapping the second set of track data, and wherein the first set of track data is able to be captured in a same or opposite direction of motion in the environment.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determining a first length for a selected first landmark pair; determining a first direction for the selected first landmark pair; determining a second length for a selected second landmark pair; determining a second direction for the selected second landmark pair; comparing the first length to the second length and the first direction to the second direction; and determining the first landmark pair corresponds to the second landmark pair based, at least, on the comparing.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the threshold is at least one of a percentage of total landmark pairs associated with the landmark or a specified value.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein other landmarks are considered for inclusion in the one or more first landmark pairs or the one or more second landmark pairs if the other landmarks are within a determined distance range from the selected landmark, the determined distance range determined by a minimum distance and a maximum distance from the selected landmark.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the one or more first landmark pairs and the one or more second landmark pairs each include up to a maximum number of pairs, the maximum number of pairs determined based in part upon a desired level of performance or a maximum amount of latency.
” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the one or more operations include at least one of generating map data corresponding to the environment, updating map data corresponding to the environment, or automatically labeling one or more landmarks associated with the environment.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determine and align corresponding landmarks between a plurality of landmark graphs based, at least, on a threshold number of correlated landmark pair segments, extending from a selected landmark within the plurality of landmark graphs, exceeding a correspondence threshold.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “one or more processors to determine and align corresponding landmarks between a plurality of landmark graphs based, at least, on a threshold number of correlated landmark pair segments, extending from a selected landmark within the plurality of landmark graphs, exceeding a correspondence threshold.” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “one or more processors to determine and align corresponding landmarks between a plurality of landmark graphs based, at least, on a threshold number of correlated landmark pair segments, extending from a selected landmark within the plurality of landmark graphs, exceeding a correspondence threshold.” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the first set of track data is acquired by a first sensor-equipped machine and the second set of track data is acquired by a second sensor-equipped machine operating in the environment.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the first set of track data is acquired by a first sensor-equipped machine and the second set of track data is acquired by a second sensor-equipped machine operating in the environment.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). (“The collecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering network traffic data for use in the comparison step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.”).
v1.2 7/9/2024
As to claim 18:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the corresponding landmarks are transformed to align to a common frame of reference.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein other landmarks are considered for inclusion in landmark pairs if the other landmarks are within a determined distance range from a selected landmark, the determined distance range determined by a minimum distance and a maximum distance from the selected landmark.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 20:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the system comprises at least one of: a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for rendering graphical output; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing generative AI operations using a large language model (LLM); a system implemented using an edge device; a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content; a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content; a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content; a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; a system for performing hardware testing using simulation; a system for performing generative operations using a language model (LM); a system for synthetic data generation; a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 21:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determine, from first track data and second track data associated with a region, one or more first landmark pairs associated with a landmark and one or more second landmark pairs associated with the landmark;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “compare at least a subset of the one or more first landmark pairs and the one or more second landmark pairs associated with the landmark based at least on spatial relationships between landmarks represented in the first track data and the second track data;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “determine whether a number of corresponding first landmark pairs and second landmark pairs satisfies a correspondence threshold;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “identify the landmark as a corresponding landmark between the first track data and the second track data responsive to the correspondence threshold being satisfied.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “and providing the identified landmark for use in one or more operations relating to an environment in which an object corresponding to the landmark is located.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 22:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein determining whether the number of corresponding first landmark pairs and second landmark pairs satisfies the correspondence threshold comprises determining whether the number exceeds at least one of a specified count or a specified ratio relative to a total number of landmark pairs associated with the landmark.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 23:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein one or more circuits are further to provide the corresponding landmark for use in one or more operations relating to an environment in which an object corresponding to the corresponding landmark is located.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 24:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein determining the one or more first landmark pairs and the one or more second landmark pairs comprises identifying other landmarks located within a determined distance range from the landmark, the determined distance range defined by a minimum distance and a maximum distance.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 25:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the first track data and the second track data correspond to track data captured along at least partially overlapping portions of the region, and wherein the track data are captured in a same direction of motion or in opposite directions of motion within the region.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 26:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for rendering graphical output; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing generative AI operations using a large language model (LLM), a system implemented using an edge device; a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content; a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content; a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content; a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; a system for performing hardware testing using simulation; a system for synthetic data generation; a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Claims 2, 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, applicant claims the limitation of selecting a landmark associated with one or more first landmark pairs, within a set of first track data, and one or more second landmark pairs, associated with a set of second track data for a region; comparing at least a subset of the one or more first landmark pairs and the one or more second landmark pairs associated with the landmark; determining that a number of corresponding first landmark pairs and second landmark pairs exceeds a correspondence threshold.
It is unclear whether the “determining that a number of corresponding first landmark pairs and second landmark pairs exceeds a correspondence threshold” relates to “comparing at least a subset of the one or more first landmark pairs and the one or more second landmark pairs associated with the landmark”. Here the applicant does not clearly connect the two limitations. So, a person skilled in the art cannot determine whether the subset of the one or more first landmark pairs is determined based on one or more criteria of the comparison or not. For the purpose of compact prosecution, it is interpreted that the subset of the one or more first landmark pairs is determined based on one or more criteria of the comparison
Claims 2, 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 21, 22, 23 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hochrieser, 20200272718 A1.
With regard to claim 1:
Hochrieser discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: selecting a landmark associated with one or more first landmark pairs (see fig. 6B wherein the landmark 604 which is the head of the user is selected associated with at least a landmark pairs of user’s left eye and nose, paragraph 94 and 95: “The device determines (1338) whether the first facial image 602 and the second facial image 302 meet matching criteria by comparing the first portion 604 of the captured image data with the second portion 606 of the captured image data. In some embodiments, comparing the first portion 604 of the captured image data with the second portion 606 of the image data includes comparing, for example, distance, size, shape, curve features, color, and/or relative properties of one or more portions of the first image 602 and the second image 302. In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a first facial feature (e.g., a nose) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data that corresponds to the first facial image 602 and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data that corresponds to the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a second facial feature (e.g., a left eye) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data. A first distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the first portion 604 of the captured image data is determined. A second distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the second portion 606 of the captured image data is determined. The first distance (e.g., relative to the size of facial image 602 in the first portion 604) is compared with the second distance (e.g., relative to the size of the facial image 302 in the second portion 606) to determine whether the first facial image and the second facial image meet the matching criteria.” ), within a set of first track data (see fig. 6 wherein the first track data is the photo of the user: paragraph 4: “Some authentication systems described herein perform authentication using a captured image that includes a person's face and a document that includes a previously captured image of the person's face. For example, while the person is holding an identification document, such as a driver's license, that includes a previously captured photograph of the person's face, an image is captured such that the person's face and the identification document are both visible in the image. Image analysis is performed on the image to determine whether the person's face in the image matches the facial image on the identification document. If the image analysis determines that there is a match, authorization is granted. In this way, a device is enabled to perform authentication using a received image without relying on access to user information obtained and stored prior to receiving the image.”), and one or more second landmark pairs, associated with a set of second track data for a region (see landmark pairs include the pair of nose and left eye in the id card, paragraph 95: “In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a first facial feature (e.g., a nose) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data that corresponds to the first facial image 602 and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data that corresponds to the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a second facial feature (e.g., a left eye) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data. A first distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the first portion 604 of the captured image data is determined. A second distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the second portion 606 of the captured image data is determined. The first distance (e.g., relative to the size of facial image 602 in the first portion 604) is compared with the second distance (e.g., relative to the size of the facial image 302 in the second portion 606) to determine whether the first facial image and the second facial image meet the matching criteria.”); comparing at least a subset of the one or more first landmark pairs and the one or more second landmark pairs associated with the landmark (the first and second landmark pairs are compared, see landmark pairs include the pair of nose and left eye in the id card and the new photo, paragraph 95: “In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a first facial feature (e.g., a nose) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data that corresponds to the first facial image 602 and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data that corresponds to the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a second facial feature (e.g., a left eye) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data. A first distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the first portion 604 of the captured image data is determined. A second distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the second portion 606 of the captured image data is determined. The first distance (e.g., relative to the size of facial image 602 in the first portion 604) is compared with the second distance (e.g., relative to the size of the facial image 302 in the second portion 606) to determine whether the first facial image and the second facial image meet the matching criteria.”); determining that a number of corresponding first landmark pairs and second landmark pairs exceeds a correspondence threshold (the first and second landmark pairs are compared, see landmark pairs include the pair of nose and left eye in the id card and new photo, paragraph 95: “In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a first facial feature (e.g., a nose) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data that corresponds to the first facial image 602 and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data that corresponds to the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a second facial feature (e.g., a left eye) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data. A first distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the first portion 604 of the captured image data is determined. A second distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the second portion 606 of the captured image data is determined. The first distance (e.g., relative to the size of facial image 602 in the first portion 604) is compared with the second distance (e.g., relative to the size of the facial image 302 in the second portion 606) to determine whether the first facial image and the second facial image meet the matching criteria.”); identifying the landmark as corresponding to both the first set of first track data and the second set of second track data (paragraph 83: “In some embodiments, analyzing the captured data to determine the first portion 604 of the captured image data that corresponds to the first facial image 602 includes (1332) selecting, using the second portion 606 of the captured image data that corresponds to the second facial image 302, a respective portion of a respective image frame that corresponds to the first facial image 602. For example, the image analysis module 106 determines one or more parameters (e.g., shape of face, location of facial features such as eyes, mouth, and nose relative to one another and/or relative to an outline of the face, relative sizes of facial features, and/or distances between facial features) of the second facial image 302 and uses the one or more parameters of the second facial image 302 to identify corresponding parameters in the first facial image 602.”); and providing the identified landmark for use in one or more operations relating to an environment in which an object corresponding to the landmark is located (see fig. 13a for operations after confirmation of identification: paragraph 73 to 75: “In some embodiments, determining whether the first network 150 meets image validation criteria includes (1308) accessing a stored value to determine whether a previous authorization of a received request occurred. For example, in some embodiments, determining whether an authorization has been granted for a particular user includes determining whether, for a previous authorization request, authorization information has been received by the imaging capturing device 200 (e.g., as described below with regard to operation 1342). If an authorization has not been granted for the particular user, the image validation criteria are met (e.g., image validation is required for the current transaction). In some embodiments, in accordance with a determination that the first network 150 meets the image validation criteria (e.g., image validation has not been previously performed for a particular user), the device transmits (1310) the request for the captured image data that includes the first facial image 602 and the image of the document 300 that includes the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, in accordance with a determination that the first network does not meet the image validation criteria (e.g., image validation has been previously performed for the user, so no further image validation is required), the device forgoes (1312) transmitting the request for the captured image data that includes the first facial image 602 and the image of the document 300 that includes the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, in accordance with a determination that the first network 150 does not meet the image validation criteria, the device transmits (1314) a request for alternative authentication data (e.g., username, password, and/or alternative biometric data such as fingerprint scan and/or retinal scan). For example, when it is determined that a first network 150 is not capable of performing image validation, the device requests the alternative authentication data.”).
With regard to claims 4 and 25:
Hochrieser discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first set of track data is at least partially overlapping the second set of track data, and wherein the first set of track data is able to be captured in a same or opposite direction of motion in the environment (see fig. 3 wherein the first track data is the first image taken, the second track data is the second image taken, paragraph 37 and 38: “FIG. 3 is a pictorial flow diagram of an example process 300 of determining one or more intersections, and an intersection density associated with the intersection(s). An operation 302 can include identifying object information in two-dimensional image data. The object information can be determined based on sensor data captured from a vehicle at different times. The object information can include bounding boxes associated with objects, and the like. The bounding boxes can be associated with the objects. The sensor data can be utilized to determine center points of the objects, as well as covariance data associated with the objects. The bounding boxes can include two-dimensional bounding boxes associated with the objects represented in the sensor data.”).
With regard to claim 6:
Hochrieser discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the threshold is at least one of a percentage of total landmark pairs associated with the landmark or a specified value (Since there is only one first landmark pair and one second landmark pair to compare, the threshold is 100%, paragraph 95: “In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a first facial feature (e.g., a nose) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data that corresponds to the first facial image 602 and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data that corresponds to the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a second facial feature (e.g., a left eye) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data. A first distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the first portion 604 of the captured image data is determined. A second distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the second portion 606 of the captured image data is determined. The first distance (e.g., relative to the size of facial image 602 in the first portion 604) is compared with the second distance (e.g., relative to the size of the facial image 302 in the second portion 606) to determine whether the first facial image and the second facial image meet the matching criteria.”).
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
With regard to claim 22:
Hochrieser discloses The processor of claim 21, wherein determining whether the number of corresponding first landmark pairs and second landmark pairs satisfies the correspondence threshold comprises determining whether the number exceeds at least one of a specified count or a specified ratio relative to a total number of landmark pairs associated with the landmark (Since there is only one first landmark pair and one second landmark pair to compare, the threshold is 100%, paragraph 95: “In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a first facial feature (e.g., a nose) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data that corresponds to the first facial image 602 and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data that corresponds to the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, the image analysis module 106 determines a location of a second facial feature (e.g., a left eye) within the first portion 604 of the captured image data and within the second portion 606 of the captured image data. A first distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the first portion 604 of the captured image data is determined. A second distance between the first facial feature and the second facial feature in the second portion 606 of the captured image data is determined. The first distance (e.g., relative to the size of facial image 602 in the first portion 604) is compared with the second distance (e.g., relative to the size of the facial image 302 in the second portion 606) to determine whether the first facial image and the second facial image meet the matching criteria.”).
With regard to claim 23:
Hochrieser discloses the aspect wherein one or more circuits are further to
provide the corresponding landmark for use in one or more operations relating to an environment in which an object corresponding to the corresponding landmark is located (see fig. 13a for operations after confirmation of identification: paragraph 73 to 75: “In some embodiments, determining whether the first network 150 meets image validation criteria includes (1308) accessing a stored value to determine whether a previous authorization of a received request occurred. For example, in some embodiments, determining whether an authorization has been granted for a particular user includes determining whether, for a previous authorization request, authorization information has been received by the imaging capturing device 200 (e.g., as described below with regard to operation 1342). If an authorization has not been granted for the particular user, the image validation criteria are met (e.g., image validation is required for the current transaction). In some embodiments, in accordance with a determination that the first network 150 meets the image validation criteria (e.g., image validation has not been previously performed for a particular user), the device transmits (1310) the request for the captured image data that includes the first facial image 602 and the image of the document 300 that includes the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, in accordance with a determination that the first network does not meet the image validation criteria (e.g., image validation has been previously performed for the user, so no further image validation is required), the device forgoes (1312) transmitting the request for the captured image data that includes the first facial image 602 and the image of the document 300 that includes the second facial image 302. In some embodiments, in accordance with a determination that the first network 150 does not meet the image validation criteria, the device transmits (1314) a request for alternative authentication data (e.g., username, password, and/or alternative biometric data such as fingerprint scan and/or retinal scan). For example, when it is determined that a first network 150 is not capable of performing image validation, the device requests the alternative authentication data.”).
With regard to claim 26:
Hochrieser discloses wherein the processor is comprised in at least
one of: a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for rendering graphical output; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing generative AI operations using a large language model (LLM), a system implemented using an edge device; a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content; a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content; a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content;
a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; a system for performing hardware testing using simulation; a system for synthetic data generation; a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (paragraph 58: “For example, in accordance with a determination by the image analysis module 106 that a facial position adjustment is needed, the computing system 100 transmits to the image capturing device 200 a facial position adjustment request, which includes a message such as “please turn your head to the left.” In some embodiments, in response to receiving the transmitted request, the image capturing device 200 displays or otherwise outputs this message (e.g., via an output device 232). In some embodiments, in response to receiving the transmitted request (e.g., subsequent to displaying the received message), image capturing device 200 captures a new image 750, as shown in FIG. 7B, and sends the new image 750 to the computing system 100. In some embodiments, the computing system 100 performs image analysis on the new image 750.”).
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by OShea et al., Pub. No.: 2019/0368877A1
With regard to claim 16:
Oshea discloses a system comprising: one or more processors to determine and align corresponding landmarks between a plurality of landmark graphs based, at least, on a threshold number of correlated landmark pair segments, extending from a selected landmark within the plurality of landmark graphs (see fig. 7 and 8 for landmark pair segments extending from the selected landmark segment, paragraph 38: “The algorithm needs the information about each tree in both the local and global map to include the range to the k-closest other trees in both the local and the global area maps. The global area maps are generated as pre-process steps on the left side of FIG. 6 including generating a global tree location map, 601, and developing both the k-Vector best fit function and the feature vectors for all globally identified trees, 602. All the information about the global map and tree features can be stored in a global tree information database and made accessible to the observer when the application is needed. For example, FIG. 7A shows a two-dimensional map of a section of forest where each individual tree location is represented as a dot. For each tree object, the distance to closest k elements is computed to form a k—that describes the object location as shown in FIG. 7B. This means that only k+2 values are needed describe each tree object in the global map (x-y coordinates and the k-feature vector).”), exceeding a correspondence threshold (the matches is determined based on threshold value paragraph 42: “With both the position estimate and the covariance matrix of all hypotheses determined, the remaining modules 606, 607, 608 and 609 can then iterate through each new locally observed tree and build confidence in the observer's true position as more tree matches gate with each other in the observer's reference frame. Once a proposed observer position is passed onto the multiple hypothesis positioning framework, the algorithm then compares the proposed observer position to all other proposed positions from other previous local-global tree matches. The comparison is done by way of a likelihood ratio test which is defined by the likelihood that a group of proposed tree matches provide the actual position of the observer over the likelihood that the group of proposed tree matches represent a false hypothesis of the observer's location. Following the MHP framework with each new locally observed tree that is passed through the algorithm, the most likely hypothesis is output and checked against a score threshold. If the score threshold is met then the observer can make use of the position estimate.”).
With regard to claim 17:
Oshea discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of landmark graphs correspond to a plurality of tracks of sensor data (paragraph 7: “The local sensor device may specifically be a LiDar device, a laser range finding device or a camera. The global terrain feature location data may be derived from overhead imaging data, lidar data and/or radar data. And the distinctive terrain features may be trees. ”) captured in a region of an environment (paragraph 31: “FIG. 5 shows an example of an overhead image of a portion of a forest illustrating the pattern of crown delineation. Publicly accessible high-resolution (0.6 m resolution) satellite imagery previously has been used to show tree crown detection and identification for cataloging forests. Similar methods can be extended to detect and locate trees across defined terrain regions. In specific embodiments this may include classifying the trees by specific features such as color, shape, etc. For example, shape may be used to classify an object as a tree, building or statue. Length of shadow may be used to estimate height of the terrain feature, which may assist in the classification. Shape of the shadow also may be used to infer a profile shape of the terrain feature, which may assist in the classification. This all may be represented as a two-dimensional location of the tree in a North-East reference frame and a tree ID number, so that millions of trees could be stored on a single compact flash drive memory. Previous studies have shown accuracies of tree crown detection of up to 75% with satellite imagery and 85% with aerial imagery. Embodiments of the invention can incorporate these errors and still accurately determine the user's position. See Skurikhin, et al., “Unsupervised individual tree crown detection in high-resolution satellite imagery,” Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, Vol. 10, Iss.1, p. 010501, Jan. 26, 2016, the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein, for all purposes.”).
With regard to claim 18:
Oshea discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the corresponding landmarks are transformed to align to a common frame of reference (paragraph 40:” Next the pattern matching blocks including generating potential local-to-global tree hypotheses to determine hypothesized position of the observer, 605, for example, by taking the difference between locally observed position of a potential tree match and the position of the globally identified tree. FIG. 9A shows how this can be based on using a fit line for the first element of the feature vector for the k-vector search algorithm. Then as shown in FIG. 9B, a small portion of the feature vectors can be compared when determining a pass list using the k-Vector search algorithm; for example, using a fifth order best fit for the Gaussian CDF relationship between distance between trees and their index.”).
With regard to claim 20:
Oshea discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the system comprises at least one of: a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for rendering graphical output; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing generative AI operations using a large language model (LLM); a system implemented using an edge device; a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content; a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content; a system for generating or presenting mixed reality (MR) content; a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; a system for performing hardware testing using simulation; a system for performing generative operations using a language model (LM); a system for synthetic data generation; a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (paragrpah 49: “Embodiments can be implemented in part as a computer program product for use with a computer system. Such implementation may include a series of computer instructions fixed either on a tangible medium, such as a computer readable medium (e.g., a diskette, CD-ROM, ROM, or fixed disk) or transmittable to a computer system, via a modem or other interface device, such as a communications adapter connected to a network over a medium. The medium may be either a tangible medium (e.g., optical or analog communications lines) or a medium implemented with wireless techniques (e.g., microwave, infrared or other transmission techniques). The series of computer instructions embodies all or part of the functionality previously described herein with respect to the system. Those skilled in the art should appreciate that such computer instructions can be written in a number of programming languages for use with many computer architectures or operating systems. Furthermore, such instructions may be stored in any memory device, such as semiconductor, magnetic, optical or other memory devices, and may be transmitted using any communications technology, such as optical, infrared, microwave, or other transmission technologies. It is expected that such a computer program product may be distributed as a removable medium with accompanying printed or electronic documentation (e.g., shrink wrapped software), preloaded with a computer system (e.g., on system ROM or fixed disk), or distributed from a server or electronic bulletin board over the network (e.g., the Internet or World Wide Web). Of course, some embodiments of the invention may be implemented as a combination of both software (e.g., a computer program product) and hardware. Still other embodiments of the invention are implemented as entirely hardware, or entirely software (e.g., a computer program product).” See also paragraph 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hochrieser, in view of Ondruska, et al., Patent No.: 20210140773.
With regard to claim 3:
Hochrieser does not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first set of track data is acquired by a first sensor-equipped machine and the second set of track data is acquired by a second sensor-equipped machine operating in the environment.
However Ondruska discloses the aspect wherein the first set of track data is acquired by a first sensor-equipped machine and the second set of track data is acquired by a second sensor-equipped machine operating in the environment (Claim 1 “A computer-implemented method comprising: determining, by a computing system, a first sensor that has visited a location including a localisation landmark that has been previously visited by a second sensor by determining that first pose data associated with the first sensor satisfies a similarity threshold with second pose data associated with the second sensor; subsequent to determining that the first pose data satisfies the similarity threshold with the second pose data, determining, by the computing system, relative pose data between the first pose data associated with the first sensor and second pose data associated with the second sensor; determining, by the computing system, a first global pose of the first sensor associated with the first set of sensor data and a second global pose of the second sensor associated with the second set of sensor data based on the relative pose by determining pose constraints associated with the relative pose data; and determining, by the computing system, a global position of the localisation landmark associated with the location based on at least one of the first global pose or the second global pose.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Ondruska to Hochrieser so multiple different senser can be used to acquire the tracking data sets to allow more flexibility and allow comparison from different perspectives.
Claims 7 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochrieser, in view of Labbe et al., Pub. No.:20160034180A1.
With regard to claims 7 and 24:
Hochrieser does not disclose the aspect wherein other landmarks are considered for inclusion in the one or more first landmark pairs or the one or more second landmark pairs if the other landmarks are within a determined distance range from the selected landmark, the determined distance range determined by a minimum distance and a maximum distance from the selected landmark.
However Labbe discloses the aspect wherein other landmarks are considered for inclusion in the one or more first landmark pairs or the one or more
second landmark pairs if the other landmarks are within a determined distance range from the selected landmark, the determined distance range determined by a minimum distance and a maximum distance from the selected landmark. (“In some embodiments, the inter-key distance rules can be based on an allowable range of inter-key distances between the variable key locations of adjacent virtual keys. This range of inter-key distances can include a minimum inter-key distance and a maximum inter-key distance to be maintained between the two keys of each pair of adjacent virtual keys. Depending on the implementation of the dynamic calibration method, the allowable range of inter-key distances may or may not be the same for each pair of adjacent virtual keys of the virtual Braille keyboard. In some cases, the pairs of adjacent virtual keys can consist only of fingers from a same hand, which in practice means that the unactivated virtual keys associated with the left and right hands are updated independently of each other.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Labbe to Hochrieser so the system can include landmarks that are relevant to the selected landmark that is within the preferred range which could also reduce the work load.
Claims 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochrieser, in view of OShea et al., Pub. No.: 2019/0368877A1.
With regard to claims 5:
Hochrieser does not discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a first length for a selected first landmark pair; determining a first direction for the selected first landmark pair; determining a second length for a selected second landmark pair; determining a second direction for the selected second landmark pair; comparing the first length to the second length and the first direction to the second direction; and determining the first landmark pair corresponds to the second landmark pair based, at least, on the comparing.
However Oshea discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a first length for a selected first landmark pair; determining a first direction for the selected first landmark pair; determining a second length for a selected second landmark pair; determining a second direction for the selected second landmark pair; comparing the first length to the second length and the first direction to the second direction; and determining the first landmark pair corresponds to the second landmark pair based, at least, on the comparing (see fig. 7 and 8 for length and direction comparison, claim 1: “1. A computer-implemented method employing at least one hardware implemented navigation processor for terrain feature matching navigation, the method comprising: operating the navigation processor to execute program instructions to: obtain local terrain feature location data from a local sensor device at a user location without a prior-known global position, the local terrain feature location data characterizing relative distances and directions to a plurality of local terrain features nearest to the user location; access global terrain feature location data stored in at least one hardware memory device, wherein the global terrain feature location data characterizes relative distances and directions between a plurality of distinctive terrain features located in a defined terrain region in terms of absolute global location coordinates; compare the local terrain feature location data to the global terrain feature location data to develop a plurality of pattern matching hypotheses, wherein each pattern matching hypothesis characterizes a likelihood of a subset of the local terrain features matching a subset the global terrain features; and determine global location coordinates for the user location from the plurality of pattern matching hypothese”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Oshea to Hochrieser so the system can use both length and direction to accurately identify landmarks instead of only using length which adds accuracy.
With regard to claim 9:
Hochrieser does not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more operations include at least one of generating map data corresponding to the environment, updating map data corresponding to the environment, or automatically labeling one or more landmarks associated with the environment.
However Oshea discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more operations include at least one of generating map data corresponding to the environment, updating map data corresponding to the environment, or automatically labeling one or more landmarks associated with the environment (paragraph 28: “The navigation processor 103 then compares the local terrain feature location data to the global terrain feature location data to develop multiple pattern matching hypotheses, step 203, wherein each pattern matching hypothesis characterizes a likelihood of a subset of the local terrain features matching a subset the global terrain features. Global location coordinates for the user location then are determined by the navigation processor 103, step 204, from the pattern matching hypotheses. As the user location varies across the terrain, the navigation processor 103 updates the global location coordinates, step 205.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Oshea to Hochrieser so the system can update map data once it determines that the landmark is a match so the method can be used for environmental mapping.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Oshea, in view of Labbe et al., Pub. No. :2016/034180A1.
With regard to claim 19:
Oshea does not disclose the aspect wherein other landmarks are considered for inclusion in landmark pairs if the other landmarks are within a determined distance range from a selected landmark, the determined distance range determined by a minimum distance and a maximum distance from the selected landmark.
However Labbe discloses wherein other landmarks are considered for inclusion in landmark pairs if the other landmarks are within a determined distance range from a selected landmark, the determined distance range determined by a minimum distance and a maximum distance from the selected landmark (“In some embodiments, the inter-key distance rules can be based on an allowable range of inter-key distances between the variable key locations of adjacent virtual keys. This range of inter-key distances can include a minimum inter-key distance and a maximum inter-key distance to be maintained between the two keys of each pair of adjacent virtual keys. Depending on the implementation of the dynamic calibration method, the allowable range of inter-key distances may or may not be the same for each pair of adjacent virtual keys of the virtual Braille keyboard. In some cases, the pairs of adjacent virtual keys can consist only of fingers from a same hand, which in practice means that the unactivated virtual keys associated with the left and right hands are updated independently of each other.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Labbe to Oshea so the system can include landmarks that are relevant to the selected landmark that is within the preferred range which could also reduce the work load.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim, Pub. No.: 20180365858 A1 In the detecting of the lanes by determining the lane fits, the lane detection unit may determine that the lane fit is satisfied, when one or more of a crossing condition that two straight lines included in the straight line pair do not cross each other, a lane thickness condition that the minimum distance and maximum distance between the two straight lines included in the straight line pair fall within a preset lane thickness change range, and an overlap ratio condition that the overlap ratio of the two straight lines included in the straight line pair when the two straight lines are projected onto a reference axis on the bird's-eye view is equal to or more than a preset ratio are satisfied.
Mou, Pub. No.: US 20220222918 A1: As shown by the first layer of algorithm logic 201 in FIG. 2, after extracting the depth feature of the image, the image retrieval device may perform image matching in the feature database, to screen out possible matched objects. The determining, based on the first feature of the image, at least one candidate image matching the image includes, but is not limited to: obtaining feature distances between the depth feature of the image and depth features stored in the feature database, and sorting retrieval images corresponding to the stored depth features in descending order of the feature distances; and determining a specified quantity of retrieval images ranked top as the at least one candidate image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est M-F.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178