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 is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/679,912, with an effective filing date of 5/31/2024. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are currently pending. Claim 9 has been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Specification section in Applicant’s arguments, see page 20, and subsequently withdraws the objection to said section.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1-20 as being unpatentable over Haynes (US Pat. No. 10,216,189) in view of Kwant et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0347851 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Kwant] the Applicant has elected to amend the aforementioned claims. The Examiner discussed during an interview with the Applicant that the amendments appeared to overcome the original rejection.
However, after further consideration, the Examiner submits that the arguments presented by the Applicant are unpersuasive and a rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 USC § 103 is hereby maintained as detailed below.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues, see page 21, that the references do not disclose nor teach the amended limitation determining a representation of a bounding shape that encompasses a segment of the sequence of segments of the route. However, Kwant teaches in [0069] In exemplary embodiments, the road segment data records are links or segments representing roads, streets, or paths, as can be used in the calculated route or recorded route information for determination of one or more personalized routes. This is interpreted as including a sequence of segments and that the personalized route encompasses a segment of the sequence of segments of the route.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues, see page 21-22, that the references do not disclose nor teach the amended limitation identifying map data associated with the representation of the bounding shape by identifying an intersection between the bounding shape and at least one axis-aligned bounding shape in a quad-tree spatial index. However, regarding use of a quad-tree spatial index, Kwant teaches in [0078-79] where the geographic database can include a spatial index that correlates each polygon point data record to a database index (e.g., a quad-tree bin in which the point is located). Furthermore, FIG. 3C is a diagram of a quad-tree representation of a spatial index of polygon points. Further, the system (e.g., via the mapping platform) stores the polygon points (e.g., representing the centroids of each stored polygon) as the spatial index in the form of a quad-tree representation. Further, regarding intersecting bounding shapes with axis-aligned bounding shapes, Kwant teaches in [0062] that a “Link” (or “edge”) is a contiguous, non-branching string of one or more line segments terminating in a node at each end. Further, in [0067] s.1-5 it is taught that links do not cross themselves and do not cross each other except at a node. Also, there are no duplicated shape points, nodes, or links and two links that connect each other have a common node. Further that overlapping geographic features are represented by overlapping polygons and when polygons overlap, the boundary of one polygon crosses the boundary of the other polygon and the location at which the boundary of one polygon intersects they boundary of another polygon is represented by a node. Lastly, Kwant further teaches in [0091] that the mapping platform can determine proximate polygons with respect to two axes (e.g., X and Y) and three axes (e.g., X, Y, and Z), which is construed by the Examiner as the quad-tree spatial index including polygons or bounding shape representations aligned with axes.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
In regards to independent claims 12 and 17, Applicant argues, while differing in scope, these claims recite similar features to claim 1 and their rejections should likewise be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Furthermore, amendments to claim 1 have necessitated a rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC § 112(d), as detailed below, for being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phraseology that may be implied (e.g., line 1 “In various examples, embodiments are directed to…,” line 2 “In this regard,…,” and line 6 “In embodiments,…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation wherein the quad-tree spatial index includes representations of axis-aligned bounding shapes and it is unclear how this further limits the at least one axis-aligned bounding shape in a quad-tree spatial index as found in claim 1 lines 7-8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes (US Pat. No. 10,216,189) in view of Kwant et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0347851 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kwant.
Regarding claim 1, Haynes discloses:
A method comprising:
obtaining a route in association with an ego-machine (column (col) 3 lines (ln) 35-38 the motion planning system determine a motion plan relative to the high-priority objects and the vehicle additional time to
implement the determined motion plan);
determining a representation of a bounding shape that encompasses a segment of the route (col 5 ln 23-31 the perception system can generate, for each object, state data that describes a current state of such object and is represented by a bounding polygon or other shape);
performing one or more operations corresponding to the ego-machine based at least on the map data (col 2 ln 16-17 processors to perform operations and col 11 ln 23-35 where the map data provides information about the surrounding environment that assists the vehicle computing system in comprehending and perceiving its surrounding environment and its relationship thereto).
Although Haynes discloses identifying map data associated with the representation of the bounding shape (col 11 ln 20-23 the perception system can retrieve or otherwise obtain map data that provides detailed information about the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle).
However, Haynes does not explicitly disclose:
including a sequence of segments;
encompasses a segment of the sequence of segments of the route; and
identifying map data associated with the representation of the bounding shape by identifying an intersection between the bounding shape and at least one axis-aligned bounding shape in a quad-tree spatial index.
However, regarding sequences of segments, Kwant teaches in [0069] In exemplary embodiments, the road segment data records are links or segments representing roads, streets, or paths, as can be used in the calculated route or recorded route information for determination of one or more personalized routes. This is interpreted as including a sequence of segments and that the personalized route encompasses a segment of the sequence of segments of the route.
Regarding use of a quad-tree spatial index, Kwant teaches in [0078-79] where the geographic database can include a spatial index that correlates each polygon point data record to a database index (e.g., a quad-tree bin in which the point is located). Furthermore, FIG. 3C (below) is a diagram of a quad-tree representation of a spatial index of polygon points. Further, the system (e.g., via the mapping platform) stores the polygon points (e.g., representing the centroids of each stored polygon) as the spatial index in the form of a quad-tree representation.
Regarding intersecting bounding shapes with axis-aligned bounding shapes, Kwant teaches in [0062] that a “Link” (or “edge”) is a contiguous, non-branching string of one or more line segments terminating in a node at each end. Further, in [0067] s.1-5 it is taught that links do not cross themselves and do not cross each other except at a node. Also, there are no duplicated shape points, nodes, or links and two links that connect each other have a common node. Further that overlapping geographic features are represented by overlapping polygons and when polygons overlap, the boundary of one polygon crosses the boundary of the other polygon and the location at which the boundary of one polygon intersects they boundary of another polygon is represented by a node. Lastly, Kwant further teaches in [0091] that the mapping platform can determine proximate polygons with respect to two axes (e.g., X and Y) and three axes (e.g., X, Y, and Z), which is construed by the Examiner as the quad-tree spatial index including polygons or bounding shape representations aligned with axes.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and navigation before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle route navigation using bounding shapes of Haynes, by incorporating the axis-aligned boundary shape intersection, the segments of routes, quad-tree spatial index teachings of Kwant, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Kwant in [0002-3], minimized use of computational resources and time contrary to historical approaches to finding polygon overlaps that are often resource intensive and time consuming because they rely on evaluating a large number of stored polygons.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 12 and 17 recite a processor and a system having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claims 12 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Haynes, as modified by Kwant, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the bounding shape comprises an object-oriented bounding shape around the segment of the route (see claim 1 regarding col 5 ln 23-31 the perception system can generate, for each object, state data that describes a current state of such object and is represented by a bounding polygon or other shape and col 11 ln 20-35 where map data pertains to the surrounding environment, which is interpreted by the Examiner as a segment of the route).
Claim 18 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Haynes, as modified by Kwant, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the representation of the bounding shape comprises an indication of a set of corners of an object-oriented bounding shape around the segment of the route (see claim 1 FIG. 3C, above).
Regarding claim 4, Haynes, as modified by Kwant, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the quad-tree spatial index includes representations of axis-aligned bounding shapes (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Haynes, as modified by Kwant, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the map data associated with the representation of the bounding shape (see claim 1 regarding col 11 ln 20-23 retrieve or obtain map data and use of a quad-tree spatial index) comprises:
generating a query including the representation of the bounding shape that encompasses the segment of the route (see claim 2 and claim 1 regarding including the segments of routes and col 11 ln 20-23 retrieve or obtain map data, which is construed by one of ordinary skill in the art of computer science as necessarily generating a query); and
executing the query using the quad-tree spatial index to identify the map data associated with the representation of the bounding shape (see claim 1 regarding col 11 ln 20-23 retrieve or obtain map data, which is construed by one of ordinary skill in the art of computer science as necessarily executing a query).
Claim 13 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Haynes, as modified by Kwant, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the map data associated with the bounding shape (see claim 1 regarding col 11 ln 20-23 retrieve or obtain map data and use of a quad-tree spatial index) comprises:
generating a route spatial index that includes at least the representation of the bounding shape that encompasses the segment of the route (see claim 2 see claim 1 regarding col 11 ln 20-23 retrieve or obtain map data, which is construed by one of ordinary skill in the art of computer science as necessarily generating a query);
executing the query using the quad-tree spatial index to identify the map data associated with the representation of the bounding shape (see claim 1 regarding col 11 ln 20-23 retrieve or obtain map data, which is construed by one of ordinary skill in the art of computer science as necessarily executing a query),
but regarding the limitation generating a query including the route spatial index, Kwant further teaches in [0069] that the road segment data records are links or segments representing roads, streets, or paths, as can be used in the calculated route or recorded route information for determination of one or more personalized routes, which is interpreted by the Examiner as route spatial index that can be queried.
Claim 14 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Haynes, as modified by Kwant, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the map data associated with the bounding shape (see claim 1 regarding col 11 ln 20-23 retrieve or obtain map data and use of a quad-tree spatial index)comprises:
generating a route spatial index that includes at least the representation of the bounding shape that encompasses the segment of the route (see claim 2 see claim 1 regarding col 11 ln 20-23 retrieve or obtain map data, which is construed by one of ordinary skill in the art of computer science as necessarily generating a query);
executing the query against the route spatial index to identify the map data associated with the representation of the bounding shape (see claim 1 regarding col 11 ln 20-23 retrieve or obtain map data, which is construed by one of ordinary skill in the art of computer science as necessarily executing a query),
but regarding the limitation generating a query that includes at least a portion of the quad-tree spatial index, Kwant teaches in [0111-112] that quad-tree representations contain many levels that are associated with map tiles and that searches of the spatial index returns a quad-tree representation containing proximate points. The Examiner submits that it is construed that if the database utilizes such representations and the output of a search is said representations, then the query may reasonably include or reference at least a portion of the quad-tree spatial index.
Claim 15 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 7 above, therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Haynes, as modified by Kwant, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the map data associated with the bounding shape (see claim 1) comprises:
generating a query that includes a representation of an axis-aligned bounding shape associated with a node of the quad-tree spatial index (see claim 4); and
executing the query against the route spatial index to identify the map data associated with the representation of the bounding shape (see claim 1),
but regarding the limitation generating a route spatial index that includes the representation of the bounding shape that encompasses the segment of the route and a representation of another bounding shape associated with the another segment of the route, Kwant further teaches in FIG. 2 (below, specifically polygons 201a-f) as well as in [0037] that the geographic area, construed as a route spatial index, may possess different polygonal shapes, interpreted as bounding shapes, each for different geographical features, construed by the Examiner as representations of different segments of a route.
PNG
media_image2.png
591
797
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Applicant has elected to cancel the claim and consolidate limitations within claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is no longer under consideration
Claim 19 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 9 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Haynes, as modified by Kwant, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more operations comprise one or more of performing a localization task (col 1 ln 23-31 sending and navigating the surrounding environment which is construed as performing a localization task), performing a perception task (see FIG.1 below perception system which inherently perform perception tasks), or performing a navigation task (see FIG.1 below regarding motion planning and vehicle controls which are construed as navigational tasks), but regarding the limitation of displaying the map data, Kwant teaches in [0074] sentence 1 a map display.
PNG
media_image3.png
503
952
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Haynes, as modified by Kwant, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed using at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (see claim 10 regarding FIG. 1 above);
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (see claim 10 regarding FIG. 1 above);
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations (col 20 ln 42-53 use of deep learning models);
a system for performing remote operations (col 21 ln 18-22 computing system can be remotely located and communicate wirelessly with other computing systems);
a system for performing real-time streaming;
a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational Al operations (col 21 ln 18-22 machine learning computing systems communicating with one another, which is construed as a form of conversational AI operations);
a system implementing one or more language models;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs);
a system implementing one or more multi-modal language models;
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system for generating synthetic data using Al;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center (col 21 ln 18-22 computing system can be remotely located and communicate wirelessly with other computing systems); or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Claims 16 and 20 recite a processor and a system having substantially the same features of claim 11 above, therefore claims 16 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Nichols (US Pat. No. 11,970,185) is directed towards determining information about an area that includes a polygon for controlling navigation of an autonomous vehicle that include defining a bounding box that encloses the area, and generating a KD-tree from the bounding box that partitions the polygon into a plurality of leaf nodes that each include at least some of a plurality of edges of the polygon; and
Huang et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 117237913 A) is directed towards an axis alignment bounding box (AABB) is a three-dimensional bounding box, wherein all sides are aligned with x-y-z coordinate axis.
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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights