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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 13 May 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 13 May 2024 and 08 April 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS’s were considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities: Figures 2 is missing labelling for diagrams or flowcharts that require text for understanding.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “…wherein the second subset of the plurality of anchor points is smaller than the first subset of the plurality of anchor points” which is ambiguous. It is not clear “the second subset of the plurality of anchor points is smaller than the first subset of the plurality of anchor points” is comparing the size of the “points” OR the number of points in the subset. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “…a size of the second subset is smaller than a size of the first subset…” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 11 recites “…collect the plurality of local maps of an environment using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM)” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how “collect the plurality of local maps” is implemented by “using simultaneous localization and mapping”, i.e., how SLAM is used to “collect”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpretated by the examiner as “…collect the plurality of local maps of an environment, wherein the plurality of local maps are created using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM)” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 18 recites “…collecting the plurality of local maps of an environment from a plurality of vehicles using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM)”, which is ambiguous. It is not clear how “collecting the plurality of local maps” is implemented by “using simultaneous localization and mapping”, i.e., how SLAM is used to “collect”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpretated by the examiner as “…collecting the plurality of local maps of an environment from a plurality of vehicles, wherein the plurality of local maps are created using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM)” for the purpose of examination.
Claims 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system, the method comprising:
quantifying a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) error at each of a plurality of locations within an environment;
determining a plurality of anchor points within the environment based at least in part on the GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations; and
aligning the plurality of local maps with the global coordinate system based at least in part on the plurality of anchor points.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “quantifying...”, “determining…” and “aligning…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the mind or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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 exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the claim does not recite any additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim lacks additional limitation(s) to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element or additional limitations beyond the abstract idea.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 11.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a system for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A system for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system, the system comprising:
a plurality of vehicle sensors including at least a vehicle global navigation satellite system (GNSS), a vehicle perception sensor, and a vehicle communication system; and
a vehicle controller in electrical communication with the plurality of vehicle sensors, wherein the vehicle controller is programmed to:
collect the plurality of local maps of an environment using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), wherein each of the plurality of local maps includes a plurality of observation points, and wherein each of the plurality of observation points includes observation data including observations made using the vehicle perception sensor, local map coordinates, and GNSS coordinates determined using the vehicle GNSS; and
transmit the plurality of local maps to a server system using the vehicle communication system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “collect the plurality of local maps of an environment...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the mind or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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 exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system, the system comprising:
a plurality of vehicle sensors including at least a vehicle global navigation satellite system (GNSS), a vehicle perception sensor, and a vehicle communication system; and
a vehicle controller in electrical communication with the plurality of vehicle sensors, wherein the vehicle controller is programmed to:
collect the plurality of local maps of an environment using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), wherein each of the plurality of local maps includes a plurality of observation points, and wherein each of the plurality of observation points includes observation data including observations made using the vehicle perception sensor, local map coordinates, and GNSS coordinates determined using the vehicle GNSS; and
transmit the plurality of local maps to a server system using the vehicle communication system.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “…each of the plurality of observation points includes observation data including observations made using the vehicle perception sensor, local map coordinates, and GNSS coordinates determined using the vehicle GNSS” and
“transmit the plurality of local maps to a server system using the vehicle communication system” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “…each of the plurality of observation points…” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “transmit…” step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data transmission), and amounts to mere post solution data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “vehicle sensors”, “vehicle communication system” and “vehicle controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system (controller, sensors, communication system…) is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the collect step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “vehicle sensors”, “vehicle communication system” and “vehicle controller” to perform the collecting... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “…each of the plurality of observation points includes observation data including observations made using the vehicle perception sensor, local map coordinates, and GNSS coordinates determined using the vehicle GNSS” and “transmit the plurality of local maps to a server system using the vehicle communication system”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “…each of the plurality of observation points includes observation data including observations made using the vehicle perception sensor, local map coordinates, and GNSS coordinates determined using the vehicle GNSS” and “transmit the plurality of local maps to a server system using the vehicle communication system” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller, sensors or communication system is anything other than conventional computer, sensor and communication systems within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 18.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 18 is directed to a method for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 18 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 18 recites:
A method for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system, the method comprising:
collecting the plurality of local maps of an environment from a plurality of vehicles using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), wherein each of the plurality of local maps includes a plurality of observation points, and wherein each of the plurality of observation points includes observation data, local map coordinates, and GNSS coordinates;
identifying a plurality of proximal observation point pairs based on the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps, wherein each of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs includes a first observation point of the plurality of observation points and a second observation point of the plurality of observation points located within a first predetermined radius of the first observation point in the environment based at least in part on the observation data of each of the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps;
identifying a plurality of locations, wherein each of the plurality of locations includes the first observation point of one of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs;
executing a re-localization algorithm to determine a transformation vector between the first observation point and the second observation point, wherein the transformation vector describes a difference in location in the environment between the first observation point and the second observation point; and
determining a GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations, wherein the GNSS error at one of the plurality of locations is:
PNG
media_image1.png
31
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein eGNSS is the GNSS error between the first observation point and the second observation point at one of the plurality of locations, GNSS1 is the GNSS coordinates of the first observation point, GNSS2 is the GNSS coordinates of the second observation point, and T is the transformation vector.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identifying...”, “identifying…”, “executing a re-localization algorithm …” and “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the mind or using a pen and paper. In addition, the steps of “executing a re-localization algorithm …” and “determining a GNSS error…” also recite at least one “mathematical concept”. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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 exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system, the method comprising:
collecting the plurality of local maps of an environment from a plurality of vehicles using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), wherein each of the plurality of local maps includes a plurality of observation points, and wherein each of the plurality of observation points includes observation data, local map coordinates, and GNSS coordinates;
identifying a plurality of proximal observation point pairs based on the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps, wherein each of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs includes a first observation point of the plurality of observation points and a second observation point of the plurality of observation points located within a first predetermined radius of the first observation point in the environment based at least in part on the observation data of each of the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps;
identifying a plurality of locations, wherein each of the plurality of locations includes the first observation point of one of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs;
executing a re-localization algorithm to determine a transformation vector between the first observation point and the second observation point, wherein the transformation vector describes a difference in location in the environment between the first observation point and the second observation point; and
determining a GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations, wherein the GNSS error at one of the plurality of locations is:
PNG
media_image1.png
31
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein eGNSS is the GNSS error between the first observation point and the second observation point at one of the plurality of locations, GNSS1 is the GNSS coordinates of the first observation point, GNSS2 is the GNSS coordinates of the second observation point, and T is the transformation vector.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “collecting the plurality of local maps of an environment from a plurality of vehicles…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the collecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the identifying…, executing…, determining… steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 18 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional limitations of “collecting...from a plurality of vehicles” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “collecting... from a plurality of vehicles” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 11 and 18.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinfield (US20180172453) in view of Zhu (CN108759833, paragraph numbers cited based on attached machine translated copy).
As to claim 1, Weinfield teaches a method for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system, the method comprising:
quantifying a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) error at each of a plurality of locations within an environment (Weinfield para 0053-0054: the average position and standard deviation determination unit 48 sends signals indicating the average position and the standard deviation of the position to the inaccuracy determination unit 56. The inaccuracy determination unit 56 determines whether there are inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data. For example, the inaccuracy determination unit 56 compares the host vehicle's 10 standard deviation received from the average position and standard deviation determination unit 48 to a predetermined threshold…A standard deviation that is greater than the standard deviation threshold may indicate that there are inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, while a standard deviation less than or equal to the standard deviation threshold (i.e. not greater than the standard deviation threshold) may indicate that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data…; Fig. 2);
determining a plurality of anchor points within the environment based at least in part on the GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations (Weinfield para 0053-0059: …A standard deviation that is greater than the standard deviation threshold may indicate that there are inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, while a standard deviation less than or equal to the standard deviation threshold (i.e. not greater than the standard deviation threshold) may indicate that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data…the inaccuracy determination unit 56 may transmit signals indicating whether there is a degraded accuracy in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data… If the inaccuracy determination unit 56 determines that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, the host vehicle DSRC system 20 transmits the next BSM to remote vehicle …; Fig. 2).
Weinfield does not teach aligning the plurality of local maps with the global coordinate system based at least in part on the plurality of anchor points.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches … acquiring the intelligent vehicle's GPS pose information and converting it to the SLAM coordinate system to obtain the intelligent vehicle's GPS pose information in the SLAM coordinate system; fusing the pose information in the SLAM coordinate system and the GPS pose information in the SLAM coordinate system using Kalman filtering technology to obtain a preliminary pose estimate of the intelligent vehicle; matching the global map and the local map, and using the matching result to optimize the preliminary pose estimate to obtain the final pose of the intelligent vehicle (Zhu, para 0001, para 0024-0027, para 0030-0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weinfield so as to include aligning the plurality of local maps with the global coordinate system based at least in part on the plurality of anchor points in view of Zhu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the fusing the pose information in the SLAM coordinate system and the GPS pose information in the SLAM coordinate system and matching the global map and the local map of Zhu can be used in Weinfield, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Weinfield and Zhu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to optimize the preliminary pose estimate to obtain the final pose of the intelligent vehicle so as to improve the accuracy and precision of intelligent vehicle positioning results (Zhu para 0001).
Claims 2-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinfield in view of Zhu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ivannov (US20210341308).
As to claim 2, Weinfield in view of Zhu teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhu further teaches wherein quantifying the GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations further comprises:
collecting the plurality of local maps (Zhu para 0001, para 0024-0027, para 0030-0033);
identifying the plurality of locations in the plurality of local maps (Zhu para 0001, para 0024-0027, para 0030-0033); and
Weinfield further teaches quantifying the GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations based at least in part on the plurality of local maps (Weinfield para 0053-0054).
Weinfield modified by Zhu does not teach …from a plurality of vehicles.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ivannov teaches … the map creator 250 may send a plurality of local maps to the server 210, each of the local maps being generated based on sensor data received from a respective different vehicle (Ivannov, para 0037, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weinfield so as to include …local maps from a plurality of vehicles in view of Ivannov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the local maps from the plurality of vehicles of Ivannov can be used in Weinfield, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Weinfield and Ivannov because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to combine information collected by different vehicles to acquire more accurate combined map information.
As to claim 3, Weinfield in view of Zhu and Ivannov teaches the method of claim 2.
Zhu further teaches wherein collecting the plurality of local maps further comprises:
collecting the plurality of local maps from the vehicle using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), wherein each of the plurality of local maps includes a plurality of observation points, and wherein each of the plurality of observation points includes observation data, local map coordinates, and GNSS coordinates (Zhu para 0001, para 0024-0027, para 0030-0033).
Ivannov further teaches collecting local maps from the plurality of vehicles (Ivannov, para 0037, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weinfield so as to include … collecting local maps from the plurality of vehicles in view of Ivannov et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the local maps from the plurality of vehicles of Ivannov can be used in Weinfield, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Weinfield and Ivannov because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to combine information collected by different vehicles to acquire more accurate combined map information.
As to claim 4, Weinfield in view of Zhu and Ivannov teaches the method of claim 3.
Zhu further teaches wherein identifying the plurality of locations in the plurality of local maps further comprises:
identifying a plurality of proximal observation point pairs based on the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps, wherein each of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs includes a first observation point of the plurality of observation points and a second observation point of the plurality of observation points located within a first predetermined radius of the first observation point in the environment based at least in part on the observation data of each of the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps; and identifying the plurality of locations, wherein each of the plurality of locations includes the first observation point of one of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs (Zhu para 0035-0043: The estimated value of the posterior pose state vector at time (k-1) is obtained based on the state space transition equation, and the estimated value of the posterior pose state vector at time (k-1) is processed by the set prediction equations to obtain the prior pose state estimate at the current time k… Calculate the matching error *e* between the local map surrounding the current particle and the global map, with the current particle as the vehicle's center, also see para 0073-0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weinfield so as to include identifying a plurality of proximal observation point pairs based on the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps, wherein each of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs includes a first observation point of the plurality of observation points and a second observation point of the plurality of observation points located within a first predetermined radius of the first observation point in the environment based at least in part on the observation data of each of the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps; and identifying the plurality of locations, wherein each of the plurality of locations includes the first observation point of one of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs view of Zhu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Weinfield and Zhu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to optimize the preliminary pose estimate to obtain the final pose of the intelligent vehicle so as to improve the accuracy and precision of intelligent vehicle positioning results (Zhu para 0001).
As to claim 7, Weinfield in view of Zhu and Ivannov teaches the method of claim 4.
Weinfield further teaches wherein determining the plurality of anchor points further comprises: determining a plurality of anchor locations, wherein the plurality of anchor locations includes a subset of the plurality of locations; and determining a plurality of anchor points, wherein each of the plurality of anchor points corresponds to one of the plurality of anchor locations (Weinfield para 0053-0059: …A standard deviation that is greater than the standard deviation threshold may indicate that there are inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, while a standard deviation less than or equal to the standard deviation threshold (i.e. not greater than the standard deviation threshold) may indicate that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data…the inaccuracy determination unit 56 may transmit signals indicating whether there is a degraded accuracy in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data… If the inaccuracy determination unit 56 determines that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, the host vehicle DSRC system 20 transmits the next BSM to remote vehicle …; Fig. 2).
As to claim 8, Weinfield in view of Zhu and Ivannov teaches the method of claim 7.
Weinfield further teaches wherein determining the plurality of anchor locations further comprises: determining the plurality of anchor locations, wherein each of the plurality of anchor locations has a GNSS error less than or equal to a predetermined error threshold (Weinfield para 0053-0059: …A standard deviation that is greater than the standard deviation threshold may indicate that there are inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, while a standard deviation less than or equal to the standard deviation threshold (i.e. not greater than the standard deviation threshold) may indicate that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data…the inaccuracy determination unit 56 may transmit signals indicating whether there is a degraded accuracy in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data… If the inaccuracy determination unit 56 determines that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, the host vehicle DSRC system 20 transmits the next BSM to remote vehicle …; Fig. 2 ).
As to claim 9, Weinfield in view of Zhu and Ivannov teaches the method of claim 8.
Weinfield further teaches wherein determining the plurality of anchor locations further comprises: determining the plurality of anchor locations, wherein each of the plurality of anchor locations has a GNSS error less than or equal to a predetermined error threshold, and wherein each of the plurality of anchor locations has at least a first predetermined quantity of the plurality of observation points within a second predetermined radius of the each of the plurality of anchor locations (Weinfield para 0053-0059: …A standard deviation that is greater than the standard deviation threshold may indicate that there are inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, while a standard deviation less than or equal to the standard deviation threshold (i.e. not greater than the standard deviation threshold) may indicate that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data…the inaccuracy determination unit 56 may transmit signals indicating whether there is a degraded accuracy in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data… If the inaccuracy determination unit 56 determines that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, the host vehicle DSRC system 20 transmits the next BSM to remote vehicle …; Fig. 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinfield in view of Zhu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ye (US20200226413).
As to claim 10, Weinfield in view of Zhu teaches the method of claim 1.
Weinfield modified by Zhu does not teach wherein aligning the plurality of local maps with the global coordinate system further comprises: performing a first stage alignment using a first alignment algorithm and a first subset of the plurality of anchor points; and performing a second stage alignment using a second alignment algorithm and a second subset of the plurality of anchor points, wherein the second alignment algorithm is different from the first alignment algorithm, and wherein the second subset of the plurality of anchor points is smaller than the first subset of the plurality of anchor points.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ye teaches … detecting a series of uniformly distributed feature points in the reference image by a partitioning strategy… a matching area selection unit for predicting a matching area in the input image corresponding to a point set by using the georeference information of remote sensing images… a preliminary matching unit for establishing a fast similarity metric for CP detection by using the 3D FFT based on the pixel-wise feature representation map, obtaining a sub-pixel location for the CP by fitting the local extremum of the similarity map and repeating the operations… and a fine-matching unit for rejecting the CP pairs with large errors to obtain the final CP pairs… (Ye, para 0060, also see Fig. 1 and related text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weinfield so as to include wherein aligning the plurality of local maps with the global coordinate system further comprises: performing a first stage alignment using a first alignment algorithm and a first subset of the plurality of anchor points; and performing a second stage alignment using a second alignment algorithm and a second subset of the plurality of anchor points, wherein the second alignment algorithm is different from the first alignment algorithm, and wherein the second subset of the plurality of anchor points is smaller than the first subset of the plurality of anchor points in view of Ye et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the preliminary matching and fine matching by removing points with large errors of Ye can be used in Weinfield, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Weinfield and Ye because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to achieve fast and robust imaging matching (Ye para 0060).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harouche (US20220227373) in view of Zhu.
As to claim 11, Harouche teaches a system for aligning a plurality of local maps with a global coordinate system, the system comprising:
a plurality of vehicle sensors including at least a vehicle global navigation satellite system (GNSS), a vehicle perception sensor, and a vehicle communication system; and a vehicle controller in electrical communication with the plurality of vehicle sensors (Harouche para 0069-0073: an autonomous vehicle may include a camera and a processing unit that analyzes visual information captured from the environment of the vehicle… the vehicle may use GPS data, sensor data (e.g., from an accelerometer, a speed sensor, a suspension sensor, etc.), and/or other map data to provide information related to its environment while the vehicle is traveling, and the
vehicle (as well as other vehicles) may use the information to localize itself on the model, Fig. 1, Fig. 4); wherein the vehicle controller is programmed to:
collect the plurality of local maps of an environment, wherein each of the plurality of local maps includes a plurality of observation points, and wherein each of the plurality of observation points includes observation data including observations made using the vehicle perception sensor, local map coordinates, and GNSS coordinates determined using the vehicle GNSS (Harouche para 0199-0201: sparse map 800 may be generated based on data (e.g., drive information) collected from one or more vehicles as they travel along roadways… using sensors aboard the one or more vehicles (e.g., cameras, speedometers, GPS, accelerometers, etc.)… Using the collected information, sparse map 800 may be generated and distributed (e.g., for local storage or via on-the-fly data transmission) for use in navigating one or more autonomous vehicles… Data recorded in sparse map 800 may include position information based on Global Positioning System (GPS) data… a determination of a location of the identified landmark relative to the vehicle (e.g., based on image analysis of data collected from one or more cameras on board the vehicle)… In some cases, the position information may include one or more 2D image positions (e.g., X-Y pixel locations) in a captured image where the semantic or non-semantic features/objects were detected…); and
transmit the plurality of local maps to a server system using the vehicle communication system (Harouche para 0199-0201: …the harvesting vehicles transmit to a mapping-server indications of detections of the semantic and/or non-semantic objects/features along with positions associated with those objects/features…to aid the mapping server in reconstructing the drive information and aligning the drive information from multiple harvesting vehicles, each harvesting vehicle may also provide the server with a location (e.g., a GPS location) where each image was captured).
Harouche does not explicitly teach …using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches… acquiring the intelligent vehicle's GPS pose information and converting it to the SLAM coordinate system to obtain the intelligent vehicle's GPS pose information in the SLAM coordinate system; fusing the pose information in the SLAM coordinate system and the GPS pose information in the SLAM coordinate system…matching the global map and the local map… (Zhu, para 0001, para 0024-0027, para 0030-0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harouche so as to include…using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) in view of Zhu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that generating local maps using SLAM of Zhu can be used in Harouche, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Harouche and Zhu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to improve the accuracy and precision of intelligent vehicle positioning results (Zhu para 0001).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harouche in view of Zhu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Weinfield.
As to claim 12, Harouche in view of Zhu teaches the system of claim 11.
Harouche further teaches a server communication system; and a server controller in electrical communication with the server communication system, wherein the server controller is programmed to: receive the plurality of local maps using the server communication system; identify a plurality of locations in the plurality of local maps (Harouche para 0201-0202).
Zhu further teaches aligning the plurality of local maps with the global coordinate system based at least in part on the plurality of anchor points (Zhu, para 0001, para 0024-0027, para 0030-0033).
Harouche modified by Zhu does not teach quantifying a GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations based at least in part on the plurality of local maps; determining a plurality of anchor points based at least in part on the GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Weinfield teaches the average position and standard deviation determination unit 48 sends signals indicating the average position and the standard deviation of the position to the inaccuracy determination unit 56. The inaccuracy determination unit 56 determines whether there are inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data. For example, the inaccuracy determination unit 56 compares the host vehicle's 10 standard deviation received from the average position and standard deviation determination unit 48 to a predetermined threshold…A standard deviation that is greater than the standard deviation threshold may indicate that there are inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, while a standard deviation less than or equal to the standard deviation threshold (i.e. not greater than the standard deviation threshold) may indicate that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data……the inaccuracy determination unit 56 may transmit signals indicating whether there is a degraded accuracy in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data… If the inaccuracy determination unit 56 determines that there are no inaccuracies in the GNSS and/or GPS receiver 24, 28 data, the host vehicle DSRC system 20 transmits the next BSM to remote vehicle (Weinfield para 0053-0059, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harouche so as to include…quantifying a GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations based at least in part on the plurality of local maps; determining a plurality of anchor points based at least in part on the GNSS error at each of the plurality of locations in view of Weinfield et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Harouche and Weinfield because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 13, Harouche in view of Zhu and Weinfield teaches the system of claim 12.
Harouche further teaches the server controller (Harouche para 0199-0203).
Zhu further teaches identify a plurality of proximal observation point pairs based on the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps, wherein each of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs includes a first observation point of the plurality of observation points and a second observation point of the plurality of observation points located within a first predetermined radius of the first observation point in the environment based at least in part on the observation data of each of the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps; and identify the plurality of locations, wherein each of the plurality of locations includes the first observation point of one of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs (Zhu para 0035-0043: The estimated value of the posterior pose state vector at time (k-1) is obtained based on the state space transition equation, and the estimated value of the posterior pose state vector at time (k-1) is processed by the set prediction equations to obtain the prior pose state estimate at the current time k… Calculate the matching error *e* between the local map surrounding the current particle and the global map, with the current particle as the vehicle's center, also see para 0073-0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weinfield so as to include teaches identify a plurality of proximal observation point pairs based on the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps, wherein each of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs includes a first observation point of the plurality of observation points and a second observation point of the plurality of observation points located within a first predetermined radius of the first observation point in the environment based at least in part on the observation data of each of the plurality of observation points of each of the plurality of local maps; and identify the plurality of locations, wherein each of the plurality of locations includes the first observation point of one of the plurality of proximal observation point pairs view of Zhu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Weinfield and Zhu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to optimize the preliminary pose estimate to obtain the final pose of the intelligent vehicle so as to improve the accuracy and precision of intelligent vehicle positioning results (Zhu para 0001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 112(b) as set forth in this Office Action.
Claims 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) as set forth in this Office Action.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664