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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.9, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the Objection to claims 24 and 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to claims 24 and 25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.13-15, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 18-33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 18-33 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejection of claims 18-20, 22-24, 33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In ¶0039 Eggert discuses that obstacles detected by the sensors would create occluded regions and that these regions could be filled in using the virtual sensor means. Therefore as best understood by the Examiner (see below) this information in the occluded area would read on the claim amendments.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., verify a property by determining whether the scene is consistent with the expected map-based representation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). In fact the amendment appears to be claiming the property is not used. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner has updated the rejection to address the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 and 22-33 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite the limitation “based on a result of the checking, determining at least with respect to location for which the actual sensor data are consistent with the expectation, that a scene observed by the sensor has a characteristic that the spatially resolved map stores in association with the exception, wherein the characteristic represents a property of the scene associated in the spatially resolved map with the expectation and being distinct from features of the expectation used in the checking of the consistency between the actual sensor data and the expectation”. The Examiner initially notes that the term “property” is not used in the specification and is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. As written in the claims some characteristics are used to determine that the sensor data matches the expected data, but then theses same characteristics are not compared to the sensor data. It appears that the applicants intended the claims to be referring to a freely accessible area, and determining obstacles in the area as discussed on pg. 17 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 and 22-33 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.
The limitation “wherein the characteristic represents a property of the scene associated in the spatially resolved map with the expectation and being distinct from features of the expectation used in the checking of the consistency between the actual sensor data and the expectation” is not supported in the specification as filed. The specification does not use the term “property” and does not discuss a property that is “distinct from the from features of the expectation used in the checking of the consistency between the actual sensor data and the expectation”. On pg. 3 of the specification the application discuses many elements that would be considered properties of a scene that are used for comparing the expected sensor data to the actual sensor data. It appears that the claim language is meant to be directed towards determining freely accessible areas (also see objection above), but as best understood by the Examiner this is used in the comparison (see Specification Fig 1; #140; and pg. 14-16). In other words the originally filed specification does not support creating a “spatial resolved expectation” and not using features/properties of the “spatial resolved expectation” when comparing it to the actual sensor data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-20, 22-24, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0236683 (Eggert et al.).
With respect to claims 18, 32, and 33
Eggert discloses: A method for robot or vehicle control (see at least ¶0037) according to an evaluation of spatially resolved actual sensor data acquired using at least one sensor (see at least Fig 1 and 3; #2; and ¶0011 and ¶0029)/ one or more computers comprising non-transitory machine-readable data carrier on which is stored a computer program for evaluating spatially resolved actual sensor data acquired using at least one sensor (see at least Fig 1 and 3; #2; and ¶0011 and ¶0029), the method comprising/computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps the following steps:
ascertaining a location and an orientation of the sensor (#2) at a time of acquiring the actual sensor data (see at least Fig 2 and 4; #4-6 and S1; and ¶0030 and ¶0041; Discussing using the position and orientation of the sensor #2.);
retrieving a spatially resolved expectation from a spatially resolved map based on the location and the orientation of the sensor (see at least Fig 2-4; #7-9 and S2-3; and ¶0034 and ¶0042; Discussing creating a vertical sensor output based on the map information and the sensor parameters.);
checking to what extent the actual sensor data are consistent with the expectation (see at least Fig 2-4; #10 and S5-6; and ¶0035-36 and ¶0043-44; Discussing comparing a real and virtual sensor output.);
based on a result of the checking (see at least Fig 2-4; #10 and S5-6; and ¶0035-36 and ¶0043-44), determining at least with respect to locations for which the actual sensor data are consistent with the expectation (see at least Fig 4; S6-8; and ¶0035-39 and ¶0044-46; Discussing determining if the sensor data matches the expected), that a scene observed by the sensor has a characteristic that the spatially resolved map stores in association with the expectation (see at least Fig 2-4; S6-8; and ¶0035-39 and ¶0044-46; Discussing determining the position/orientation of elements in the map match the position/orientation of the elements detected by the sensor.),
wherein the characteristic represents a property of the scene associated in the spatially resolved map with the expectation (see at least Fig 3; #9; ¶0037-39; Discussing determining occluded portions of the scene) and being distinct from features of the expectation used in the checking of the consistency between the actual sensor data and the expectation (see at least Fig 3; #9; ¶0037-39; Discussing adding features of the occluded portions of the scene. The Examiner notes that the occluded portions would be distinct from the compared portions because they would not be detected by the sensors.);
ascertaining a control signal for the vehicle or the robot (see at least Fig 4; S9; and ¶0004, ¶0037-40, and ¶0046) using the determination as to the locations for which the scene observed by the sensor has the characteristic stored in the spatially resolved map in conjunction with the expectation (see at least Fig 4; S9; and ¶0004, ¶0037-40, and ¶0046; discussing controlling the vehicle based on the expected sensor information and the actual sensor information.) and
controlling the vehicle or the robot using the control signal so that driving dynamics of the vehicle or the robot are influenced according to the control signal (see at least Fig 4; S9; and ¶0004, ¶0037-40, and ¶0046; discussing controlling the vehicle).
With respect to claim 19
Eggert discloses:
wherein the sensor is a sensor on a vehicle or a sensor on a robot (see at least Fig 1; #1 and #2; and ¶0029).
With respect to claim 20
Eggert discloses:
wherein the characteristic stored in the spatially resolved map includes a statement as to an extent to which locations to which the expectation relates can be freely accessed by the vehicle or the robot (see at least Fig 2 and 3; #7 and #8; and ¶0031-33 and ¶0037-39; The Examiner notes that given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification this limitation would read on the map designating areas that are roads.).
With respect to claim 22
Eggert discloses:
wherein the actual sensor data and the expectation are converted into a common spatial reference system and/or into a common workspace (see at least Fig 2-4; #10 and S8; ¶0035-39 and ¶0046; and claim 1), and
wherein the actual sensor data are compared with the expectation in the reference system or the workspace (see at least Fig 2-4; #10 and S5-8; and ¶0035-39 and ¶0043-44).
With respect to claim 23
Eggert discloses:
wherein the expectation includes any one or more of the group consisting of the following :a spatially resolved three-dimensional geometry of the scene observed by the sensor, texturing of the scene observed by the sensor, a reflectance amplitude of the scene observed by the sensor, a multispectral response of the scene observed by the sensor, and a magnetic resonance of the scene observed by the sensor (see at least Fig 2-4; #7-9 and S2-3; ¶0034 and ¶0042; and claim 2).
With respect to claim 24
Eggert discloses:
wherein the at least one sensor includes at least one radar sensor and/or at least one lidar sensor and/or at least one camera (see at least Fig 1; #2; and ¶0029).
With respect to claim 31
Eggert discloses:
wherein an ascertained location and/or an ascertained orientation are optimized with an aim of maximizing agreement of the actual sensor data with the expectation (see at least Fig 2; #10; and ¶0014 and ¶0036-39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-30 allowed.
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 MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights