Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 11/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20160129592A1 Saboo et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190368882A1 Wheeler ("Wheeler") in view of US20160129592A1 Saboo et al ("Saboo").
As per claims 1 and 4, Wheeler teaches the limitations of the apparatus and method:
A mobile apparatus (Wheeler at least [0040]: “vehicle computing system”) comprising: a communication device (Wheeler at least [0041]: “network”); and a processor, wherein the processor performs: obtaining a three-dimensional map including first information and second information, the first information indicating a location of an object, the second information indicating a process that the mobile apparatus performs at a location corresponding to the object; and performing the process at the location corresponding to the object, based on the second information. (Wheeler at least the abstract: “builds a high definition (HD) map for a geographical region based on sensor data”, [0028]: “HD maps…autonomous vehicles…navigate to their destinations”, [0056]; “vehicle sends update messages only upon reaching or docking at high bandwidth access points”)
Wheeler does not disclose:
obtaining, by the communication device, a three-dimensional map including first information and second information, the first information indicating a location of an object, the second information indicating a process that the mobile apparatus performs at a location corresponding to the object
Saboo teaches the aforementioned limitations (Saboo at least the abstract, [0003-0008], [0038], [0056], [0067], [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wheeler with the aforementioned limitations taught by Saboo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve performance of robotic devices by improving location accuracy for performing a task (Saboo [0047] & [0110]).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler and Saboo in view of US20040174298A1 Eriksson.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Wheeler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Wheeler additionally teaches the limitations of the apparatus and method:
the object is an access point, the second information indicates the process that the mobile apparatus performs when the mobile apparatus is within a predetermined distance from the access point (Wheeler at least [0056], [0116]: “determine information…distance of the object”, [0155]: “sending the message to the online HD map…repeat periodically…every 10 miles…message can be designed to be small and can be sent on cellular networks”) *Examiner’s note: Wheeler teaches an AV that can navigate to an AP and dock, where the predetermined distance can be at least zero or close to zero.
Wheeler does not disclose the limitations of the apparatus and method:
the process includes a process for starting transmitting in a state in which a directivity of a beam is steered in a direction of the location of the object by using the first information before the mobile apparatus reaches the access point.
However, Eriksson teaches the aforementioned limitation (Eriksson at least the abstract: "system…antenna capable of directing a beam in a given angular direction…location of the portable radio telephone…angular beam direction…controller for configuring the antenna for communication with the portable radio telephone by directing a beam in the angular direction indicated in the database").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wheeler with the aforementioned limitations taught by Eriksson with a reasonable expectation of success. The invention taught by Wheeler is capable of sending information before arrival at an AP over a simple cellular network which can be easily aided by the addition of the directional antenna taught by Eriksson. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to provide location dependent information services (Eriksson [0012]).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Wheeler in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Wheeler additionally teaches:
a sensor, wherein the processor further performs obtaining sensor data from the sensor, and in the transmitting, the sensor data is transmitted to a server via the access point. (Wheeler at least claim 18: “sending…server occurs when the autonomous vehicle is docked at a high bandwidth access point”, [0124]: “transmit sensor data…LIDAR…image”)
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights