DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-24 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9-20 are amended. Claims 2, 5, 7 and 8 are original. Claims 21-24 are new.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 1/30/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application KR10-2019-0149600 filed in the Republic of Korea on 11/20/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 1/30/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 10), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 10-11), the remarks are acknowledged and based on the amendments, no terms in the claims are presently interpreted as invoking 112(f).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 11), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive. The arguments and amendments regarding the rejections presented in paragraphs 33, 36, 38, and 40-43 in the previous office action are persuasive and therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. No reasoned arguments or amendments have been presented regarding the rejection presented in paragraph 34 and thus the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under Double Patenting (presented on p. 11-12), the arguments and amendments are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 12-
20), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of US2018/0376079A1 (Shigemura) and U.S. 8,787,696 B1 (Biswas et al.) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of NPL Publication “Precise mobile laser scanning for urban mapping utilizing 3D aerial surveillance data” (Javanmardi et al.), US2021/0035314A1 (Shu et al.), US2019/0130182A1 (Zang et al.), US2018/0096463A1 (Kim et al.), US2020/0175720A1 (Hsu et al.), US2008/0243378A1 (Zavoli).
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 10 and 19, “point cloud data that included” should instead read “point cloud data that is included”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites top view images being sequentially layered “to progressively reconstruct at least a portion of the map requiring update.” The arguments (p. 19-20) refer to Figure 9C regarding this language, however the description of Figure 9 discusses updating the aerial image, not the map. The map is updated based on the updated aerial image (e.g. as shown in Figures 10 and 11) but is not described as being progressively reconstructed and there does not appear to be any description of when the map “requires” updating (e.g. map portion being missing or being out of date). Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-24 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 19, the limitation “generating an HD map showing the road area of the updated aerial image in three dimensions based on the calculated 3D coordinate value” renders the claims indefinite. The HD map is stated to show the area of the “updated aerial image” but is claimed to be based on the calculated 3D coordinate value, which is based on a 2D coordinate value of an object extracted from the original (i.e. not updated) aerial image. As best understood in view of the disclosure (see e.g. Figures 10, 11), the updating of the aerial occurs first in S220, followed by the detection of the object in S110 and calculation of the 3d coordinate based on the updated aerial image, followed by the map being updated. It is not clear how the claimed arrangement is possible, where the map can be for an updated image but is based on old/non-updated 3D coordinate information. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood as any generation of an HD map based on the calculated 3D coordinate value.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1, 10, or Claim 19 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 23, the issues with regard to 112(a) also render the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether the limitation is intended to refer to progressively updating of the aerial image based on adding of the sequential layers, or whether it pertains to multiple map updates, or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as the top view images being layered in sequence to update the aerial image.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Publication “Precise mobile laser scanning for urban mapping utilizing 3D aerial surveillance data” (Javanmardi et al.) in view of Published Application US2021/0035314A1 (Shu et al.), further in view of Publication US2018/0376079A1 (Shigemura).
Regarding Claim 1, Javanmardi et al. discloses a method for producing a high-definition (HD) map using an aerial image and mobile mapping system (MMS) data of a mobile mapping system (see Abstract, generation of a precise 3D map usable for autonomous vehicles, using an aerial image and MMS data), the method comprising:
detecting an object of a road area from the aerial image (see p. 3, Section IV, A, road marking (an object) extracted (detected) from aerial image);
extracting a two-dimensional (2D) coordinate value of the detected object (see p. 4, Section IV, A, B, road markings in a 2D bitmap, (selected/extracted pixel based coordinates of object from the aerial image));
calculating a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate value corresponding to the 2D coordinate value based on point cloud data included in the MMS data (see p. 4, generate a 3D reference by adding precise height information to the aerial road markings and extract all “mutual features” based on MMS point cloud);
generating an HD map showing the road area of the aerial image in three dimensions based on the calculated 3D coordinate value (see p. 6, Section VI, the resulting 3D MMS data in Table 1 (which includes the objects, i.e. of the same road area), generated which can be visualized per Figure 12).
Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite calculating the three-dimensional (3D) coordinate value: by projecting the extracted 2D coordinate value onto point cloud data included in the MMS data.
However Shu et al. teaches a technique in mapping (see e.g. Claim 1), wherein registration between a point cloud and image (see [0086]) is performed:
by projecting the extracted 2D coordinate value onto point cloud data that configures the MMS data (see Figure 6, [0086-0092], “registration is implemented based on a projective transformation manner of an image feature” such that two-dimensional coordinates of an image can be provided with a depth coordinate).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Javanmardi et al. to perform the registration technique using projection, as is taught by Shu et al., with the motivation of improving process efficiency and precision of registration (see Shu et al. [0097]).
Javanmardi et al. further discloses a driving image included in the MMS data (see p. 6 the MMS equipped with cameras) but does not explicitly recite:
generating a top view image of a driving image included in the MMS data, wherein the top view image is a real-world image showing a top-down view of the driving image; and
updating the aerial image by arranging the generated top view image in chronological order on a position of the aerial image corresponding to an imaging position at which the driving image is captured.
However, Shigemura teaches a technique to obtain an aerial image (see [0070] birds-eye image),
generating a top view image of a driving image included in the MMS data, wherein the top view image is a real-world image showing a top-down view of the driving image (see Figure 4, [0061] S23, generate captured birds-eye image corresponding to camera images); and
updating the aerial image by arranging the generated top view image in chronological order on a position of the aerial image corresponding to an imaging position at which the driving image is captured (see Figure 8, [0069] S28 overwrite latest images on history image, at current position corresponding to history region and [0070] repeatedly executed, i.e. each latest image added in chronological order).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and driving image of Javanmardi et al. to be used to obtain an updated aerial image using the technique as taught by Shigemura, such that the mapped area is of the updated aerial image, with the motivation of increasing the robustness and flexibility of the system to handle updated data and improve the suitability of the data for uses such as parking assistance (see Fukuda [0012]).
Regarding Claim 4, Javanmardi et al. further discloses calculating a height value corresponding to the 2D coordinate value (see p. 4, adding precise height information to aerial road markings), and
calculating a 3D coordinate value corresponding to the 2D coordinate value based on the calculated height value (see p. 4-5, registration of 3D MMS data to obtain final 3D coordinate).
Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the calculating of the 3D coordinate value includes:
calculating a height value corresponding to the 2D coordinate value by projecting the detected 2D coordinate value onto the point cloud data included in the MMS data.
However Shu et al. teaches the method as above, including
calculating a height value corresponding to the 2D coordinate value by projecting the detected 2D coordinate value onto the point cloud data included in the MMS data (see Figure 6, [0086-0092], “registration is implemented based on a projective transformation manner of an image feature” to calculate a depth coordinate (height value) that corresponds to the two-dimensional image pixel).
The motivation to combine Javanmardi et al. and Shu et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 10, 13, 19: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 1 and 4. Claims 10 and 13 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 1 and 4, respectively. Claim 19 pertains to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claim 1. The only additional limitations in Claims 10, 13, and 19 are the apparatus comprising the processors in Claim 10 and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for performing the method in Claim 19. These limitations are taught by Shu et al. (see [0032, 0205]) and it would be obvious to perform the functions with one or more processors with the motivation of improving speed and efficiency of map making. Therefore, the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 21, Javanmardi et al. discloses wherein the driving image is a real-world image captured by at least one camera installed on a driving vehicle equipped with the MMS, and (see Figure 2, MMS as a vehicle and p. 6, Section VI. A, equipped with cameras), and
the environment around the vehicle: encompassing at least one of roads, buildings, facilities, and other vehicles (see Figures 2, 3, MMS on road and other vehicles).
Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein:
the driving image provides an omnidirectional view surrounding the driving vehicle, encompassing at least one of roads, buildings, facilities, and other vehicles.
However, Shigemura teaches the technique as above, wherein:
the driving image provides an omnidirectional view surrounding the driving vehicle (see [0069] camera images overwriting portions of history image 65, which (see Figure 8) provides view information completely around vehicle).
The motivation to combine Javanmardi et al. and Shigemura was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22, Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein, in the updating the aerial image, a most recently generated top view image is arranged as an uppermost layer.
However, Shigemura teaches the technique as above, wherein:
in the updating the aerial image, a most recently generated top view image is arranged as an uppermost layer (see Figure 8 and [0069] overwrites latest image on history image and [0070] repeated operation).
The motivation to combine Javanmardi et al. and Shigemura was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23, Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein the updating includes sequentially layering at least two top view images on top of the aerial image,
wherein a first top view image of a first driving image is arranged on top of the aerial image, and a second top view image of a second driving image is arranged on top of the first top view image, covering at least a portion of the first top view image, and
wherein the at least two top view images are sequentially layered to progressively reconstruct at least a portion of the map requiring update.
However, Shigemura teaches the technique as above, wherein:
the updating includes sequentially layering at least two top view images on top of the aerial image (see Figure 8, [0069-0070] repeated overwriting of latest images),
wherein a first top view image of a first driving image is arranged on top of the aerial image, and a second top view image of a second driving image is arranged on top of the first top view image, covering at least a portion of the first top view image (See Figure 8, e.g. image 64 as second top view image and image directly above/under 64 as first top view image), and
wherein the at least two top view images are sequentially layered to progressively reconstruct at least a portion of the map requiring update (see [0069-0070] and Figure 8).
The motivation to combine Javanmardi et al. and Shigemura was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Publication “Precise mobile laser scanning for urban mapping utilizing 3D aerial surveillance data” (Javanmardi et al.) in view of Published Application US2021/0035314A1 (Shu et al.), further in view of Publication US2018/0376079A1 (Shigemura), further in view of Publication US2019/0130182A1 (Zang et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Javanmardi et al. discloses wherein the object of the road area includes at least one of a lane marking (see Figure 6, the extracted markings including lane lines), a road surface marking, and a polygon (see p. 3 road marking extraction), and discloses the extracting from an aerial image (see p. 3).
Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein
the detecting includes, when the object of the road area is detected from the aerial image, classifying the detected object by object type.
However, Zang et al. teaches a method in mapping a driving environment (see e.g. Claim 1) wherein:
the detecting includes, when the object of the road area is detected from the aerial image, classifying the detected object by object type (see Claim 1, applying a classification model to an aerial image to determine a lane line type object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the extraction of road markings in Javanmardi et al. to additionally include classification, as is taught by Zang et al., with the motivation of improving mapping efficiency by not requiring human intervention for lane line identification and improving the suitability of the data for vehicle control by determining lane-level detail of an environment (see Zang et al. [0032, 0039]).
Regarding Claim 3, Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 2, further comprising:
allocating road attribute information to the road according to the detected object,
wherein the road attribute information includes link information electronically representing a shape of the roads and node information electronically representing a predetermined point in the link.
However, Zang et al. teaches the method as above, further comprising:
allocating road attribute information to the road (see [0115-0117] entry of information into a database including road attribute information such as a segment record) according to the detected object (see [0117] an index relates road object data 308 (e.g. a lane marking) to a road segment and location of the road object, i.e. the road attribute information in accordance with the object),
wherein the road attribute information includes link information electronically representing a shape of the roads and node information electronically representing a predetermined point in the link (see [0117] the data including associated road segment record and nodes or coordinates, i.e. information describing a shape of a road).
The motivation to combine Javanmardi et al. and Zang et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claims 11, 12, and 20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 2 and 3. Claims 11 and 12 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 2 and 3, respectively. Claim 20 pertains to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claim 2. Claims 11, 12, and 20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 2 and 3 (other than the computer components which were addressed in the rejection of Claims 10 and 19, above), and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Publication “Precise mobile laser scanning for urban mapping utilizing 3D aerial surveillance data” (Javanmardi et al.) in view of Published Application US2021/0035314A1 (Shu et al.), further in view of Publication US2018/0376079A1 (Shigemura), further in view of Publication US2018/0096463A1 (Kim et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 4, further comprising:
comparing the calculated height value with a surrounding height value to determine whether the calculated height value is an error; and
performing an error notification when the calculated height value is determined to be an error value.
However, Kim et al. teaches a technique in handling 3D data (see [0026]), comprising:
comparing the calculated height value with a surrounding height value (see [0031] step 208, for a point p in a depth map, determining distance between the point p and the surface (a surrounding height reference)) to determine whether the calculated height value is an error (see [0040] step 214 in order to determine whether to keep the point or not (points not kept are values with error)); and
performing an error notification when the calculated height value is determined to be an error value (see Figure 2, [0040] the determination not to keep a point is an internal notification to the system to discard the point, and occurs when the depth value is an error).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Javanmardi et al. to consider errors in data as is taught by Kim et al., with the motivation of improving the digital reconstruction of a scene by allowing high detail with less demand (see Kim et al. [0006]).
Regarding Claim 14: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 5. Claim 14 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 5. Claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 5 (other than the computer components which were addressed in the rejection of Claims 10 and 19, above), and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Publication “Precise mobile laser scanning for urban mapping utilizing 3D aerial surveillance data” (Javanmardi et al.) in view of Published Application US2021/0035314A1 (Shu et al.), further in view of Publication US2018/0376079A1 (Shigemura), further in view of Published Application US2020/0175720A1 (Hsu et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Javanmardi et al. discloses driving image configuring the MMS data (see p. 6 the MMS equipped with cameras) and further discloses:
wherein, in the generating of the HD map, the HD map reflecting the road facility three-dimensionally is generated based on the aerial image of the road facility and the MMS 3D coordinate value of the road facility (see mapping of Claim 1 above and p. 5-7, the generating of the map which describes road marking objects in three dimensions is generated based on the image data and 3D coordinate data).
Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 4, further comprising:
detecting a road facility from the driving image included in the MMS data;
and extracting a 3D coordinate value of the detected road facility from the point cloud data included in the MMS data,
wherein, in the generating of the HD map, the HD map reflecting the road facility three- dimensionally is generated based on the detected image of the road facility and the extracted 3D coordinate value of the road facility.
However, Hsu et al. teaches a method for obtaining mapping data (see e.g. Claim 1 processing sensor data in a vehicle) comprising:
detecting a road facility from a driving image configuring the MMS data (see Claim 1 identifying a static object in the 2D image); and
extracting a 3D coordinate value of the detected road facility from the point cloud data configuring the MMS data (see Claim 1, obtaining 3D point cloud data of the static object from the 3D point cloud data),
generating mapping data based on the detected image of the road facility and the extracted 3D coordinate value of the road facility (see Claim 3, [0033], the 3D data for a static object representing map type data)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Javanmardi et al. to additionally generate the map using MMS image data, as is taught by Hsu et al., with the motivation of further increasing the accuracy of the data and increasing redundancy by obtaining image data for areas such as tunnels or indoor areas (see Hsu et al. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 15: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 6. Claim 15 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 6. Claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 6 (other than the computer components which were addressed in the rejection of Claims 10 and 19, above), and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Publication “Precise mobile laser scanning for urban mapping utilizing 3D aerial surveillance data” (Javanmardi et al.) in view of Published Application US2021/0035314A1 (Shu et al.), further in view of Publication US2018/0376079A1 (Shigemura), further in view Publication US2008/0243378A1 (Zavoli).
Regarding Claim 7, Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, further comprising: optimizing the data of the generated HD map by calculating dummy information and assigning the calculated dummy information as an attribute of the object.
However, Zavoli teaches a technique to store map data (see [0019]) comprising:
optimizing the data of the map (see [0078] technique requiring “much less data storage”) by calculating dummy information and assigning the calculated dummy information as an attribute of the object (see [0077-0078] relative positioning information assigned as attribute of map object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the HD map of Javanmardi et al. to use the optimization technique as taught by Zavoli, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing costs associated with data storage (see Zavoli, [0078]).
Regarding Claim 8, Javanmardi et al. further discloses objects on the map having position and height data (see p. 6 result is 3D MMS map, i.e. points with 2d position as well as third dimension of height).
Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 7, wherein the optimizing includes:
calculating an offset value and a relative height value between a reference lane and a corresponding lane and assigning the calculated values to a lane area of the HD map.
However, Zavoli teaches the technique as above, wherein the optimizing includes :
calculating an offset value and a relative height value (see [0078] relative position and [0097] applied to 3D objects) between a reference lane (see [0078] centerline as an absolute lane reference) and a corresponding lane (see [0078], “each lane of the road”) and assigning the calculated values to a lane area of the map (see [0077-0078] relative position as attribute of each lane).
The motivation to combine Javanmardi et al. and Zavoli was provided above in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, Javanmardi et al. further discloses objects on the map having position and height data (see p. 6 result is 3D MMS map, i.e. points with 2d position as well as third dimension of height).
Javanmardi et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 7,
wherein the optimizing includes:
calculating an offset value and a relative height value between a reference lane and a corresponding polygon or a road surface marking and assigning the calculated values as attributes of the corresponding polygon or the road surface marking.
However, Zavoli teaches the technique as above, wherein the optimizing includes:
calculating an offset value and a relative height value (see [0078] relative position and [0097] applied to 3D objects) between a reference lane (see [0078] centerline as an absolute lane reference) and a corresponding polygon or a road surface marking (see [0078], “each lane of the road”, and see [0079], Figure 6, as defined by lane divider marking) and assigning the calculated values as attributes of the corresponding polygon or the road surface marking (see [0078] relative position as attribute).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
The motivation to combine Javanmardi et al. and Zavoli was provided above in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claims 16-18: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 7-9. Claims 16-18 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 7-9, respectively. Claims 16-18 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 7-9 (other than the computer components which were addressed in the rejection of Claims 10 and 19, above), and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Publication “Precise mobile laser scanning for urban mapping utilizing 3D aerial surveillance data” (Javanmardi et al.) in view of Published Application US2021/0035314A1 (Shu et al.), further in view of Publication US2018/0376079A1 (Shigemura), further in view Patent U.S. 8,787,696 B1 (Biswas et al.).
Regarding Claim 24, Javanmardi et al. and Shigemura do not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an error value by comparing pixel values between the generated top view image and a current aerial image, and updating the current aerial image only when the determined error value exceeds a predetermined error value.
However, Biswas et al. teaches a technique to update an image including:
determining an error value by comparing pixel values between a new image and a current image (see Claim 6, values of block of pixels differing from reference value based on previous frame), and updating the current image only when the determined error value exceeds a predetermined error value (see Claim 6, replacing based on values of the block of pixels differing from reference values by more than a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the image updating technique of Javanmardi et al. as modified by Shigemura to use a pixel error value as taught by Biswas et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving image accuracy by replacing image sections in error (see Biswas et al., Claim 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights