DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 25 February 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the objection to claims 9, 11, 13-16, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection to claims 9, 11, 13-16, and 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the Office Action of December 1, 2025. However, new rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented below based on the amendments to the claims presented in the Amendment of 25 February 2026.
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argued:
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection and submits that pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea…Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 18 are not directed to an abstract idea assuming arguendo they are … Similar to Claim 3 from Example 46, the claimed invention is not directed to the mere alleged abstract idea of “certain mental processes”, but instead integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application...amended independent claims 1, 9, and 18 expressly recite updating compatibility information such that “both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation.” … Rather, they recite a specific technological architecture for coordinated map version publishing that improves the functioning of autonomous navigation system by preventing interruption of machine operation during map updates.
The Examiner’s response:
Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection and submits that pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea…Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 18 are not directed to an abstract idea assuming arguendo they are … Similar to Claim 3 from Example 46, the claimed invention is not directed to the mere alleged abstract idea of “certain mental processes”, but instead integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application...amended independent claims 1, 9, and 18 expressly recite updating compatibility information such that “both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation.” … Rather, they recite a specific technological architecture for coordinated map version publishing that improves the functioning of autonomous navigation system by preventing interruption of machine operation during map updates.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim because the “autonomous navigation system” is not apparently claimed. The Examiner further notes that applicant’s specification [0021] “the systems and methods described herein may be used by, without limitation, non-autonomous vehicles or machines...” indicates the navigation system can be used in “non-autonomous vehicle or machines…”. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the “one or more machines” recited in claim 18 can apparently be navigated by a person.
Further, the Examiner submits that the limitations “generating…a second version of the first portion of the map” and “based at least on the storing of the first compatibility data, updating second combability data stored in association with the one or more second portions of the map by modifying the second compatibility data to include an identifier corresponding to the second version to indicate that the one or more second portions of the map are compatible with the second version…are concurrently usable by different machines for navigation of the environment” recited in claim 1, the limitations “determine that a first portion of a map has been updated from a first version to a second version”, and “based at least on the storage of the first compatibility information, update second compatibility information stored in association with the one or more second portions of the map…and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation” recited in claim 9, and the limitations “based at least on the storing of the first data, updating, at a second time after the first time, second data to indicate that the one or more second maps are compatible with the updated version and one or more previous versions of the first map while maintaining compatibility with one or more previous versions of the map …the one or more previous version are valid for navigation” recited in claim 18, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can reasonably be performed by a human mentally or by a human using a pen and paper (e.g. mental process).
The Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by the applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “the combination of Pfeifle and Lublinsky does not teach or suggest at least …to include compatibility with the second version in addition to the first version such that both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation,” however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Such a statement amounts to no more than reciting the disputed limitations and generally alleging that the cited prior art references are deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features recited in independent dependent claim x and nakedly asserting that none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest such features does not amount to a separate patentability argument. Attorney arguments that are conclusory in nature, i.e., providing no further substantive explanation or evidence in support, are afforded little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Furthermore, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F,2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See MPEP 2145. In addition, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.Sti 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion to what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prime facie case of obviousness.'').
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.
Claims 1-17 are 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “. . . by modifying the second compatibility data to include an identifier corresponding to the second version to indicate that the one or more second portions of the map are compatible with the second version in addition to the first version such that both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable by different machines for navigation of the environment;” that is not supported by the original description, which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure. For example, the paragraphs that appear to somewhat address the concept that is similar to what is described in the claim has been found in paragraph(s) [0039] “maps 114(1) – 114(6) that may be used by machines 118(1) and 118(2) (also referred to in the singular and the plural as “machine(s)118””) to navigate an environment”, [0044] “the first format 302A for representing the compatibility data 116 may include a map identifier 304 for the version of the map portion that the compatibility data 116 corresponds to. That is, if the compatibility data 116 is compatibility data for a current version of a map for Wyoming, then the map identifier 304 may correspond to a map identifier for the current version of the map for Wyoming . . .” and see at least [0063] and [00234]. The applicant’s specification [0039] appears to describe different maps may be used by plurality of machines to navigate an environment and [0044] appears to describe the compatibility data may include a map identifier; however, the specification does not appear to describe, in sufficient detail, “modifying the second combability data to include an identifier. . .” and “. . .both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable by different machines . . .” As such the specification does not describe the limitation as provided in the amended claim. Therefore, the limitation “. . .by modifying the second compatibility data to include an identifier corresponding to the second version to indicate that the one or more second portions of the map are compatible with the second version in addition to the first version such that both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable by different machines for navigation of the environment;” is new matter and does not evidence that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “. . . include compatibility with the second version in addition to the first version such that both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation” that is not supported by the original description, which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure. For example, the paragraph that appears to somewhat address the concept that is similar to what is described in the claim has been found in paragraph(s) [0039] “maps 114(1) – 114(6) that may be used by machines 118(1) and 118(2) (also referred to in the singular and the plural as “machine(s)118””) to navigate an environment” and see at least [0063] and [00234]. The applicant’s specification [0039] appears to describe different maps may be used by plurality of machines to navigate an environment; however, the specification does not appear to describe, in sufficient detail, “. . . both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation”. As such the specification does not describe the limitation as provided in the amended claim. Therefore, the limitation “. . . include compatibility with the second version in addition to the first version such that both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation” is new matter and does not evidence that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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 1-8 and 18-20 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “. . . are concurrently usable by different machines for navigation of the environment”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the “different machines” are different machines among the “one or more of the first machines” or is it referring to something different than the “one or more of the first machines”?
As to claim 18, the claim recites “the one or more previous versions are valid for navigation”. It is unclear to the Examiner from the teachings of the specification what is meant by “. . . valid for navigation”. For example, what makes the “one or more previous versions” valid, and what makes the “one or more previous versions” invalid, from the teachings of the specification?
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “generating…a second version of the first portion of the map”, and “based at least on the storing of the first compatibility data, updating second combability data stored in association with the one or more second portions of the map by modifying the second compatibility data to include an identifier corresponding to the second version to indicate that the one or more second portions of the map are compatible with the second version…are concurrently usable by different machines for navigation of the environment” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (e.g. mental process) and/or mathematical concepts grouping (2019 PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations, and data structures). For example, these limitations can reasonably be performed in a human mind or with aid of pen/pencil and paper to generate map portions/versions and determine compatibility between different data in a map (e.g. different map portion(s)). As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “storing a first version of a first portion of a map that is compatible with one or more second portions of the map”, “storing, in association with the second version of the first portion of the map, first compatibility data indicating that the one or more second portions of the map are compatible with the second version of the first portion of the map”, and “based at least on the updating of the second compatibility data, sending data representative of the second version of the first portion of the map to one or more second machines for use navigating the region of the environment, wherein the one or more second machines use the second version of the first portion of the map to navigate within the region of the environment” are recited at a high-level of generality and directed to pre- or post- solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “one or more first machines”, “different machines” and “one or more second machines” are recited at a high-level of generality and merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (MPEP 2105.5(f), MPEP 2106.05(I), and MPEP 2106.05 (e)). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “storing a first version of a first portion of a map that is compatible with one or more second portions of the map”, “storing, in association with the second version of the first portion of the map, first compatibility data indicating that the one or more second portions of the map are compatible with the second version of the first portion of the map”, and “based at least on the updating of the second compatibility data, sending data representative of the second version of the first portion of the map to one or more second machines for use navigating the region of the environment, wherein the one or more second machines use the second version of the first portion of the map to navigate within the region of the environment” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “one or more first machines”, “different machines” and “one or more second machines” are recited at a high-level of generality and merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “determine that a first portion of a map has been updated from a first version to a second version”, and “based at least on the storage of the first compatibility information, update second compatibility information stored in association with the one or more second portions of the map…and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation” the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (e.g. mental process) and/or mathematical concepts grouping (2019 PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations, and data structures). For example, these limitations can reasonably be performed in a human mind or with aid of pen/pencil and paper to determine if data has been updated from one version to another and indicate the second data is compatible with the versions. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 9 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “store first compatibility information indicating that the second version of the first portion of the map is compatible with one or more second portions of the map” is recited at a high-level of generality and directed to pre- or post- solution activity which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 9 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s). (MPEP 2105.5(f), MPEP 2106.05(I), and MPEP 2106.05 (e)). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 9 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “store first compatibility information indicating that the second version of the first portion of the map is compatible with one or more second portions of the map” is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward an apparatus which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 18 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “based at least on the storing of the first data, updating, at a second time after the first time, second data to indicate that the one or more second maps are compatible with the updated version and one or more previous versions of the first map while maintaining compatibility with one or more previous versions of the map …the one or more previous version are valid for navigation” the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (e.g. mental process) and/or mathematical concepts grouping (2019 PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations, and data structures). For example, these limitations can reasonably be performed in a human mind or with aid of pen/pencil and paper to determine compatibility between different data in a map (e.g. different map portions/versions) and indicate the second map is compatible with the versions. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 18 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “one or more circuits configured to cause one or more machines to navigate within an environment based at least on an updated version of a first map corresponding to a first region of the environment, wherein the updated version of the first map is provided to the machine, at least, by: storing, at a first time, first data indicating the updated version of the first map is compatible with one or more second maps corresponding to one or more second regions of the environment;”, and “based at least on the updating of the second data, sending, to the machine, the updated version of the first map” are recited at a high-level of generality and directed to pre- or post- solution activity which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 18 recites “a machine” is recited at a high-level of generality and merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, claim 18 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors”, and “one or more circuits” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s). (MPEP 2105.5(f), MPEP 2106.05(I), and MPEP 2106.05 (e)). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 18 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “one or more circuits configured to cause one or more machines to navigate within an environment based at least on an updated version of a first map corresponding to a first region of the environment, wherein the updated version of the first map is provided to the machine, at least, by: storing, at a first time, first data indicating the updated version of the first map is compatible with one or more second maps corresponding to one or more second regions of the environment;”, and “based at least on the updating of the second data, sending, to the machine, the updated version of the first map” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, additional element of “a machine” recited at a high-level of generality and merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the “one or more processors”, and “one or more circuits” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their
dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward
additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claim 7 recites “sending,…first data representative of the one or more second portions of the map; and …sending, to the machine, second data representative of the first version of the first portion of the map…” is recited at a high level of generality and directed to of insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
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.
Claims 9-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifle (US 20170122750 A1) in view of Lublinsky et al. (US 20160275131 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood by the Examiner, Pfeifle discloses A system
comprising: one or more processors to: determine that a first portion of a map has been updated from a first version to a second version; (Figure 5A – 5B, and [0052] “tile 4712 was re-compiled because the object lists changed, and tiles 4711, 4713, 1033 and 1034 were recompiled because the reference list changed. FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrates tiles changed between the old and new versions of FIGS. 5A-B. The table 651 illustrates the relationship between the tiles. Tile 4712 has new or moved path segments. Tiles 4711, 4713, 1033, and 1034 have changes in reference lists but not changes in object lists. The changes in reference lists occur because each of the tiles includes a path segments that extends to tile 4712. Tile 1035 has no changes because no path segments extends from tile 1035 to tile 4712.”)
store first compatibility information indicating that the second version of the first portion
of the map is compatible with one or more second portions of the map; and ([0035] “The tile data may indicate whether or not road links between adjacent tiles are compatible with each other, and thus able to form a route when pieced together. Additionally, the version compatibility matrix may indicate that any tiles stored in the database 408 are compatible with each other.”, [0038] “The system 400 may access a version compatibility matrix to determine if the tile data in memory or in a database is consistent or compatible. In other embodiments the mobile device 404 accesses the version compatibility matrix. In some embodiments the version compatibility matrix is stored on the mobile device 404, in other embodiments the version compatibility matrix is stored on the server 410 or database 408. The version compatibility matrix may include a flag or another type of data that indicates which tiles stored on the mobile device, or server or database, are compatible. The version compatibility matrix may indicate a version of the tiles. The version compatibility matrix may include a flag or another type of data that indicates whether or not a tile includes updated objects. The version compatibility matrix may indicate a version of the objects. The objects may include path segments, points of interest (POIs), and path attributes. The path segments may include roads, streets, sidewalks, walkways or other paths. Path attributes may include characteristics of the path such as speed limits, functional classifications, turn restrictions, intersection types, path names, and other data.”)
based at least on the storage of the first compatibility information, update second
compatibility information stored in association with the one or more second portions of the map to include compatibility with the second version in addition to the first version such that both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation. (Figure 7, [0050] “In some systems, all of the neighboring tiles that have references to tile 4712 may be recompiled. The references from the neighboring tiles to tile 4712 may point to an object list such as a list of road segments. As this list of road segments changes if new links are added or deleted, the references from the neighboring tiles are readjusted and, consequently, tiles 4711, 4713, 1033 and 1034 are re-computed. Although tiles 4713 and 1034 need to be recompiled, adjacent tile 1035 does not necessarily need to be r-compiled. If the link list of recompiled tiles in which no changes of the link geometry/topology took place, i.e. no links were added or deleted, does not change, then the tiles with references to them do not need to be r-compiled. This determination may be made by a compiler.”, and [0055] “In one example, only new version tiles are stored at the server 410 and only old version tiles are stored at mobile device 404. If there is a connection between the server 410 and the mobile device 404 through network 406, the system would normally download the newer versions of tiles 4712, 4711 and 1033 in response to a request for the route 751. Downloading the newer version of tile 4712 may be necessary. However, tiles 4711 and 1033 were only recompiled because of the references to tile 4712. The references from tile 4712 to other tiles have not been changed. Accordingly, the compatibility matrix is consulted to determine that tile 4712 is compatible with version 1 of the other tiles. Therefore, the old version of tiles 4711, 4713, 1033 and 1034 could be used with the new version of Tile 4712. In fact, there is no benefit because the object data of these tiles did not change.”)
Pfeifle may be alleged fails to explicitly disclose … in association with the one or more
second portions of the map to include compatibility with the second version in addition to the first version such that both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation.
Lublinsky et al. teaches … in association with the one or more second portions of the map
to include compatibility with the second version in addition to the first version such that both the first version and the second version are concurrently usable for navigation. (Figure 6B, [0055] “a chart 140 for the overlapping sequential diagrams of FIG. 6A. A few examples are included in the chart 140. The chart 140 lists overlapping range V8-V11 for the situation when V1 of the first tile 135A is compatible with V8 of the second tile 135B, overlapping range V12-V14 for the situation when V12 of the first tile 135A is compatible with V8 of the second tile 135B, overlapping range V15-V23 for the situation when V12 of the first tile 135A is compatible with V15 of the second tile 135B, and overlapping range V24-V26 for the situation when V24 of the first tile 135A is compatible with V15 of the second tile 135B.”, [0067] “At act S205, the processor 200 compares a range of compatible map versions from the compatibility table to a cached version. For example, the processor 200 may access a cached copy of the map tile from memory 201 and retrieve a version number for the cached copy, which is on the master version history numbering scheme. The processor determines whether the version number of the cached copy falls with the range of compatible map version received from the compatibility table.”, and [0068] “The processor 200 checks whether the required tile exists in the cache and is compatible with the surrounding tiles. At act S207, the processor 200 provides geographic data including the map tile based on the range of compatible map versions. For example, when the version of the cached map tile, falls with the range, the processor 200 provides geographic data using the cached map tile. The geographic data may be a map or a route presented on display 211. When the version of the cached map tile falls outside of the range, the processor 200 may request an update from the server 125.”). Examiner notes: See the compatibility with a range of different map/tile versions (e.g. V8-V11) as taught by Lublinsky et al. as “the first version and second version” being obviously “concurrently usable”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Pfeifle to incorporate range of version compatibility as taught by Lublinsky et al. for the purpose of allowing the user to request different versions of map data.
Regarding claim 10, Pfeifle in view of Lublinsky et al. discloses The system of claim 9,
Pfeifle discloses wherein the first portion of the map corresponds to a first region of an
environment and the one or more second portions of the map correspond to one or more second regions of the environment that are adjacent to the first region of the environment such that a first border associated with the first region corresponds to at least a portion of one or more second borders associated with the one or more second regions. ([0039] “a matrix is included for each tile and lists the tile identifiers and object version numbers of neighboring or connectable tiles. The matrix may also include tile version numbers. Two tiles are connectable when a road segment, or road link, extends between the two tiles. In another example, a master matrix may include all tiles and consistencies of the entire geographic region. When two tiles are consistent, the tiles are available to the system for generating a route.”, and [0035] “The tile data may indicate whether or not road links between adjacent tiles are compatible with each other, and thus able to form a route when pieced together.”, Figures 5A – 5B, and Figure 7)
Regarding claim 11, Pfeifle in view of Lublinsky et al. discloses The system of claim 9,
Pfeifle discloses the first compatibility information is stored in a first index location during
a first period of time, the second compatibility information is updated in at least one of the first index location or a second index location during a second period of time after the first period of time, and (Figures 5A-5B, Figures 6A-6B, Figure 7, [0049] “The major roadway 554 has changed near portion 553 by adding one or more path segments, moving one or more path segments, or deleting one or more path segments. The change is reflected in the object list for tile 4712. In addition, the change is reflected in tile references for 4711, 4713, 1034, and 1035. That is, because a path segment connects each of tiles 4711, 4713, 1034, and 1035 to tile 4712, tile 4712 is included in the reference list for each of tiles 4711, 4713, 1034, and 1035.”, [0050] “all of the neighboring tiles that have references to tile 4712 may be recompiled. The references from the neighboring tiles to tile 4712 may point to an object list such as a list of road segments. As this list of road segments changes if new links are added or deleted, the references from the neighboring tiles are readjusted and, consequently, tiles 4711, 4713, 1033 and 1034 are re-computed. Although tiles 4713 and 1034 need to be recompiled, adjacent tile 1035 does not necessarily need to be r-compiled. If the link list of recompiled tiles in which no changes of the link geometry/topology took place, i.e. no links were added or deleted, does not change, then the tiles with references to them do not need to be r-compiled. This determination may be made by a compiler.”, and [0053] “tile 4712 was re-compiled because the object lists changed, and tiles 4711, 4713, 1033 and 1034 were recompiled because the reference list changed. FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrates tiles changed between the old and new versions of FIGS. 5A-B. The table 651 illustrates the relationship between the tiles. Tile 4712 has new or moved path segments. Tiles 4711, 4713, 1033, and 1034 have changes in reference lists but not changes in object lists. The changes in reference lists occur because each of the tiles includes a path segments that extends to tile 4712. Tile 1035 has no changes because no path segments extends from tile 1035 to tile 4712.”, and see at least [0052]) the one or more processors configured to store the first compatibility information in the second index location during a third period of time after the second period of time. (Figure 6B, figure 7, and [0053] “Continuing the example of updated map 650, the object version and tile version values for shown in compatibility matrix 771. The tile version is increased for all newly compiled tiles with reference lists, but the object version is increased only for tile 4712.”)
Regarding claim 12, Pfeifle in view of Lublinsky et al. discloses The system of claim 11,
Pfeifle discloses the first index location is associated with a first index that is to store
compatibility data corresponding to multiple versions of multiple portions of the map, and (Figures 5A-5B, Figure 7, [0049] “The major roadway 554 has changed near portion 553 by adding one or more path segments, moving one or more path segments, or deleting one or more path segments. The change is reflected in the object list for tile 4712. In addition, the change is reflected in tile references for 4711, 4713, 1034, and 1035. That is, because a path segment connects each of tiles 4711, 4713, 1034, and 1035 to tile 4712, tile 4712 is included in the reference list for each of tiles 4711, 4713, 1034, and 1035.”)
the second index location is associated with a second index that is to store a subset of the compatibility data, the subset of the compatibility data corresponding to current versions of the multiple portions of the map. . (Figure 7, Figures 6A-6B, [0050] “all of the neighboring tiles that have references to tile 4712 may be recompiled. The references from the neighboring tiles to tile 4712 may point to an object list such as a list of road segments. As this list of road segments changes if new links are added or deleted, the references from the neighboring tiles are readjusted and, consequently, tiles 4711, 4713, 1033 and 1034 are re-computed. Although tiles 4713 and 1034 need to be recompiled, adjacent tile 1035 does not necessarily need to be r-compiled. If the link list of recompiled tiles in which no changes of the link geometry/topology took place, i.e. no links were added or deleted, does not change, then the tiles with references to them do not need to be r-compiled. This determination may be made by a compiler.”, and [0053] “tile 4712 was re-compiled because the object lists changed, and tiles 4711, 4713, 1033 and 1034 were recompiled because the reference list changed. FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrates tiles changed between the old and new versions of FIGS. 5A-B. The table 651 illustrates the relationship between the tiles. Tile 4712 has new or moved path segments. Tiles 4711, 4713, 1033, and 1034 have changes in reference lists but not changes in object lists. The changes in reference lists occur because each of the tiles includes a path segments that extends to tile 4712. Tile 1035 has no changes because no path segments extends from tile 1035 to tile 4712.”, and see at least [0052])
Regarding claim 13, Pfeifle in view of Lublinsky et al. discloses The system of claim 9,
Pfeifle discloses the one or more processors further configured to: determine that the
second compatibility information has been updated; and based at least on the determining that the second compatibility information has been updated, cause one or more indexes to be updated to indicate at least that the second version of the first portion of the map is a latest version of the first portion of the map. ([0070] At act 1106, the processor 1002 identifies a new tile version exists for the first map tile or the second map tile. The processor 1002 sends a new version of the second map tile when the analysis indicates a conflict. When no new tile version exists, the processor 1002 may proceed with the old version of the first tile, as illustrated by act 1107.”)
Regarding claim 16, Pfeifle in view of Lublinsky et al. discloses The system of claim 9,
Pfeifle discloses further configured to: send, to one or more machines located in one or
more second regions of the environment corresponding to the one or more second portions of the map, first data representative of the one or more second portions of the map; and based at least on at least one of the storage of the first compatibility information or the second compatibility information being updated, send, to the one or more machines, second map data representative of the second version of the first portion of the map for use by the one or more machines to navigate a second region of the environment corresponding to the first portion of the map. ([0070] At act 1106, the processor 1002 identifies a new tile version exists for the first map tile or the second map tile. The processor 1002 sends a new version of the second map tile when the analysis indicates a conflict. When no new tile version exists, the processor 1002 may proceed with the old version of the first tile, as illustrated by act 1107.”)
Claims 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifle (US 20170122750 A1), in view of Lublinsky et al. (US 20160275131 A1), and further in view of Wheeler et al. (US 20180188045 A1, cited in IDS filed on 08/05/2024).
Regarding claim 14, Pfeifle in view of Lublinsky et al. discloses The system of claim 9,
However, Pfeifle in combination with Lublinsky et al. fails to explicitly disclose obtain sensor
data generated using one or more machines navigating in a region of an environment corresponding to the first portion of the map; and update the first portion of the map from the first version to the second version based at least on the sensor data.
Wheeler et al. teaches obtain sensor data generated using one or more machines
navigating in a region of an environment corresponding to the first portion of the map; ([0006] “online system build a high definition (HD) map for a geographical region based on sensor data captured by a plurality of autonomous vehicles driving through a geographical region. The autonomous vehicles detect map discrepancies based on differences in the surroundings observed using sensor data compared to the high definition map and send messages describing these map discrepancies to the online system.”, and [0053] “The map discrepancy module 290 works with the map update API 285 to determine map discrepancies and communicate map discrepancy information to the online HD map system 110. Determining map discrepancies involves comparing sensor data 230 of a particular location to HD map data for that particular location…”) and update the first portion of the map from the first version to the second version based at least on the sensor data. ([0052] “The map update API 285 also allows the vehicle computing system 120 to determine whether the information monitored by the vehicle sensors 105 indicates a discrepancy in the map information provided by the online HD map system 110 and uploads data to the online HD map system 110 that may result in the online HD map system 110 updating the map data stored in the HD map store 165 that is provided to other vehicles 150.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Pfeifle in combination with Lublinsky et al. to incorporate generating updated map based on sensor data as taught by Wheeler et al. for the purpose of generating and maintaining high definition (HD) maps that are accurate and include the most updated road conditions for safe navigation. ([0027], Wheeler et al. )
Regarding claim 15, Pfeifle in view of Lublinsky et al. discloses The system of claim 9,
However, Pfeifle in view of Lublinsky et al. fails to explicitly disclose the one or more processors further configured to: send, to one or more machines located in one or more first regions of the environment corresponding to the one or more second portions of the map, first data representative of the one or more second portions of the map; and before the second data is updated, sending, to the one or more machines, second compatibility information representative of the first version of the first portion of the map for use by the machine to navigate a second region of the environment corresponding to the first portion of the map.
Wheeler teaches send, to one or more machines located in one or more first regions of the
environment corresponding to the one or more second portions of the map, first data representative of the one or more second portions of the map; and before the second data is updated, sending, to the one or more machines, second compatibility information representative of the first version of the first portion of the map for use by the machine to navigate a second region of the environment corresponding to the first portion of the map. (Figure 14, [0006] Embodiments of an online system build a high definition (HD) map for a geographical region based on sensor data captured by a plurality of autonomous vehicles driving through a geographical region. The autonomous vehicles detect map discrepancies based on differences in the surroundings observed using sensor data compared to the high definition map and send messages describing these map discrepancies to the online system.”, and [0149] “The online HD map system 110 then sends 1416 the updated HD map to the plurality of vehicles so that they may use a more accurate HD map while driving.”, and see at least [0006], and [0052]-[0053] ). Examiner Notes: See “sending,… second data representative of the first version” as the updated map (e.g. updated HD map) at the time “before updating of the second compatibility data”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Pfeifle in combination with Lublinsky et al. to incorporate providing updated map data to other users as taught by Wheeler et al. for the purpose of generating and maintaining high definition (HD) maps that are accurate and include the most updated road conditions for safe navigation. ([0027], Wheeler et al. )
Regarding claim 17, Pfeifle in view of Lublinsky et al. discloses The system of claim 9,
However, Pfeifle in combination with Lublinsky et al. fails to explicitly disclose a control
system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for performing operations using one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing operations using one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Wheeler et al. teaches wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system
for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;...([0036] “A vehicle 150 includes vehicle sensors 105, vehicle controls 130, and a vehicle computing system 120.”, and [0030] “The vehicles 150 may be autonomous vehicles”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Pfeifle in combination with Lublinsky et al. incorporate automatic driving as taught by Wheeler et al. for the purpose of enabling the vehicle to navigate without human intervention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifle (US 20170122750 A1) in view of Wheeler et al. (US 20180188045 A1, cited in IDS filed on 08/05/2024).
Regarding claim 18, Pfeifle discloses One or more processors comprising: one or more
circuits configured to ([0084] “hardware implementations, such as application specific integrated circuits, programmable logic arrays and other hardware devices, can be constructed to implement one or more of the methods described herein.”) ([0070] “the processor 1002 identifies a new tile version exists for the first map tile or the second map tile. The processor 1002 sends a new version of the second map tile when the analysis indicates a conflict. When no new tile version exists, the processor 1002 may proceed with the old version of the first tile, as illustrated by act 1107.”)
storing, at a first time, first data indicating the updated version of the first map is
compatible with one or more second maps corresponding to one or more second regions of the environment; (Figures 5A-5B, and [0038] “The system 400 may access a version compatibility matrix to determine if the tile data in memory or in a database is consistent or compatible…”, and [0039] “a matrix is included for each tile and lists the tile identifiers and object version numbers of neighboring or connectable tiles. The matrix may also include tile version numbers. Two tiles are connectable when a road segment, or road link, extends between the two tiles. In another example, a master matrix may include all tiles and consistencies of the entire geographic region. When two tiles are consistent, the tiles are available to the system for generating a route.”) based at least on the storing of the first data, updating, at a second time after the first time, second data to indicate that the one or more second maps are compatible with the updated version of the first map while maintaining compatibility with one or more previous versions of the first map such that both the updated version and the one or more previous versions are valid for navigation; and (Figure 5A – 5B, [0052] “tile 4712 was re-compiled because the object lists changed, and tiles 4711, 4713, 1033 and 1034 were recompiled because the reference list changed. FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrates tiles changed between the old and new versions of FIGS. 5A-B. The table 651 illustrates the relationship between the tiles. Tile 4712 has new or moved path segments. Tiles 4711, 4713, 1033, and 1034 have changes in reference lists but not changes in object lists. The changes in reference lists occur because each of the tiles includes a path segments that extends to tile 4712. Tile 1035 has no changes because no path segments extends from tile 1035 to tile 4712.”, and [0070] “the processor 1002 identifies a new tile version exists for the first map tile or the second map tile. The processor 1002 sends a new version of the second map tile when the analysis indicates a conflict. When no new tile version exists, the processor 1002 may proceed with the old version of the first tile, as illustrated by act 1107.”, [0067] “At act S205, the processor 200 compares a range of compatible map versions from the compatibility table to a cached version. For example, the processor 200 may access a cached copy of the map tile from memory 201 and retrieve a version number for the cached copy, which is on the master version history numbering scheme. The processor determines whether the version number of the cached copy falls with the range of compatible map version received from the compatibility table.”, and [0068] “The processor 200 checks whether the required tile exists in the cache and is compatible with the surrounding tiles. At act S207, the processor 200 provides geographic data including the map tile based on the range of compatible map versions. For example, when the version of the cached map tile, falls with the range, the processor 200 provides geographic data using the cached map tile. The geographic data may be a map or a route presented on display 211. When the version of the cached map tile falls outside of the range, the processor 200 may request an update from the server 125.”)
However, Pfeifle fails to explicitly disclose one or more circuits configured to cause one or
more machines to navigate within an environment based at least on an updated version of a first map corresponding to a first region of an environment and based at least on the updating of the second data, sending, to the machine, the updated version of the first map.
Wheeler et al. teaches one or more circuits to cause one or more machines to navigate
within an environment based at least on an updated version of a first map corresponding to a first region of an environment ([0027] “generate and maintain high definition (HD) maps that are accurate and include the most updated road conditions for safe navigation. For example, the HD maps provide the current location of the autonomous vehicle relative to the lanes of the road precisely enough to allow the autonomous vehicle to drive safely in the lane.”)
based at least on the updating of the second data, sending, to the machine, the updated
version of the first map. (Figure 14, [0006] Embodiments of an online system build a high definition (HD) map for a geographical region based on sensor data captured by a plurality of autonomous vehicles driving through a geographical region. The autonomous vehicles detect map discrepancies based on differences in the surroundings observed using sensor data compared to the high definition map and send messages describing these map discrepancies to the online system.”, [0026] “An autonomous vehicle is a vehicle capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input. Autonomous vehicles may also be referred to herein as “driverless car,” “self-driving car,” or “robotic car.” An HD map refers to a map storing data with very high precision, typically 5-10 cm. Embodiments generate HD maps containing spatial geometric information about the roads on which an autonomous vehicle can travel. Accordingly, the generated HD maps include the information necessary for an autonomous vehicle navigating safely without human intervention.” , and [0149] “The online HD map system 110 then sends 1416 the updated HD map to the plurality of vehicles so that they may use a more accurate HD map while driving.”, and see at least [0006], and [0052]-[0053] ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Pfeifle to incorporate providing updated map data to a machine (e.g. autonomous vehicle) as taught by Wheeler et al. for the purpose of generating and maintaining high definition (HD) maps that are accurate and include the most updated road conditions for safe navigation. ([0027], Wheeler et al. )
Regarding claim 19, Pfeifle in view of Wheeler et al. discloses The one or more processors of
claim 18,
Wheeler et al. teaches the one or more circuits further configured to send, to one or more
second machines, the one or more previous versions of the first map for performance of one or more second operations prior to at least one of the storing of the first data or the updating of the second data. (Figure 14, [0006] Embodiments of an online system build a high definition (HD) map for a geographical region based on sensor data captured by a plurality of autonomous vehicles driving through a geographical region. The autonomous vehicles detect map discrepancies based on differences in the surroundings observed using sensor data compared to the high definition map and send messages describing these map discrepancies to the online system.”, and [0149] “The online HD map system 110 then sends 1416 the updated HD map to the plurality of vehicles so that they may use a more accurate HD map while driving.”, and see at least [0006], [0026], and [0052]-[0053] ). Examiner Notes: See “sending,…the one or more previous version” as the updated map (e.g. updated HD map) at the time “prior to updating of the second data”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Pfeifle in combination with Wheeler et al. to incorporate providing updated map data to other machines (e.g. autonomous vehicle) as taught by Wheeler et al. for the purpose of generating and maintaining high definition (HD) maps that are accurate and include the most updated road conditions for safe navigation. ([0027], Wheeler et al. )
Regarding claim 20, Pfeifle in view of Wheeler et al. discloses The system of claim 18,
Wheeler et al. teaches wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of: a control
system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for performing operations using one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing operations using one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. ([0036] “A vehicle 150 includes vehicle sensors 105, vehicle controls 130, and a vehicle computing system 120.”, and [0030] “The vehicles 150 may be autonomous vehicles”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Pfeifle in combination with Wheeler et al. incorporate automatic driving as taught by Wheeler et al. for the purpose of enabling the vehicle to navigate without human intervention.
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 MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights