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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Figs. 1 and 2) [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note]. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “an electronic computing device for receiving…”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 the recited limitation “the surroundings” in line 2 and “the alignment’s resulting pose correction” in line 22 is/are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the claim recites “its image derivatives”. It is unclear to the examiner to what this limitation is referring to. Is it to the score image derivative? The error image derivatives? Moreover, the claim recites “based at least in part on projecting the expected three-dimensional points into the score image and /or the error image and using the score image and/or the error image and its image derivative to perform an iterative optimization by the electronic computing device” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what this limitation means or if it is missing a step? The limitation begins with based at least in part but it is not clear what happens or what happened at least in part?
In claim 2, the recited limitation “the semantic contour image” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 3, the recited limitation “the semantic contour image” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 4, the recited limitation “which labeled landmark is in particular dependent on raw measurements” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what this limitation mean or is referring to ?
In claim 5, the recited limitation “the pose correction” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the alignment’s resulting pose correction or if this is a different pose correction with insufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 6, the recited limitation “the pose correction” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the alignment’s resulting pose correction or if this is a different pose correction with insufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 7-10 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claim(s) are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite comparing the expected three-dimensional points of the map elements with the score image and/or the error image and its image derivatives to perform model- to-image alignment by the electronic computing device. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as image measurement data, pose estimate data, map data, and three-dimensional points could compare the expected three-dimensional points of the map elements with the score image and/or the error image and its image derivatives to perform model- to-image alignment by the electronic computing device. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving first data of semantic contour image measurements by an electronic computing device of the assistance system; receiving second data of an initial pose estimate by the electronic computing device; receiving third data of semantically labeled map elements by the electronic computing device; generating a score image and/or an error image and its image derivatives based on the first data by the electronic computing device; generating expected three-dimensional points of the map elements at the initial pose estimate based on the second data and third data by the electronic computing device; transmitting the alignment's resulting pose correction and pose correction uncertainty to the assistance system; computer product program, at least one electronic computing device. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (sematic contour image data, pose estimate data, and map elements data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating and transmitting steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a computer program product and computing device are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, generating, and transmitting steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-10 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19-20 are directed to a computer readable medium which can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The computer program product could be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission. The Examiner suggests amending the claims to specify that the computer readable medium is a non-transitory computer readable medium.
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 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alherton et al (US 20210240195 A1) in view of Markus Herb (Semantic Image Alignment for Vehicle Localization, 08 October 2021).
With respect to claim 1, Atherton disclose a method for correcting a pose of a motor vehicle in the surroundings of the motor vehicle by an assistance system of the motor vehicle (see at least [abstract]), the method comprising the steps of: receiving first data of semantic contour image measurements by an electronic computing device of the assistance system (see at least [0021-0024], [0033-0034], [0039], and [0052],“…the images captured by imaging sensors 130 can be used to construct annotated images of environment 200 while autonomous ground vehicle 110 is operating in environment 200…”); receiving second data of an initial pose estimate by the electronic computing device (see at least [0022] and [0033-003 “…an initial relative positioning is performed based on odometry information that is received from the various sensors of the autonomous ground vehicle. For example, the initial alignment can be based on the autonomous ground vehicle's expected position and orientation based on the autonomous ground vehicle's planned route, distance travelled, time travelled, speed travelled, etc. The initial relative positioning can also consider previous alignments the autonomous ground vehicle may have achieved at different positions while operating in the environment. With the annotated image and the annotated reference map positioned in the initial relative positioning, an alignment score corresponding to the relative positioning of the annotated image to the annotated reference map can be determined.”.); receiving third data of semantically labeled map elements by the electronic computing device (see at least [0021-0024], [0033-0036], [0039], and [0052-0053]); generating a score image and/or an error image and its image derivatives based on the first data by the electronic computing device (see at least [0023], [0045-0046], and [0053]); based at least in part on projecting the expected three-dimensional points into the score image and/or the error image and using the score image and/or the error image and its image derivative to perform an iterative optimization by the electronic computing device (see at least [0022-0026], [0045-0048], and [0053]); and transmitting the alignment's resulting pose correction and pose correction uncertainty to the assistance system (see at least [0022-0026], [0045-0048], and [0053]).
However, Atherton do not specifically disclose generating expected three-dimensional points of the map elements at the initial pose estimate based on the second data and third data by the electronic computing device; comparing the expected three-dimensional points of the map elements with the score image and/or the error image and its image derivatives to perform model- to-image alignment by the electronic computing device.
Herb teaches generating expected three-dimensional points of the map elements at the initial pose estimate based on the second data and third data by the electronic computing device (see at least [pages 2-3 and page 5], “…particle filter-based localization system was proposed that uses a sparse 3D map of semantically labeled points for localization by evaluating the consistency of semantic points projected to image space for each particle.”, An overview of our localization algorithm is depicted in Fig. 2. The fundamental idea behind our localization system is to estimate the relative pose between a perceived camera frame F and a virtual camera view R rendered from the 3D map at a known initial estimate of the vehicle pose); comparing the expected three-dimensional points of the map elements with the score image and/or the error image and its image derivatives to perform model- to-image alignment by the electronic computing device (see at least [pages 2-3 and page 7], “…particle filter-based localization system was proposed that uses a sparse 3D map of semantically labeled points for localization by evaluating the consistency of semantic points projected to image space for each particle.”, An overview of our localization algorithm is depicted in Fig. 2. The fundamental idea behind our localization system is to estimate the relative pose between a perceived camera frame F and a virtual camera view R rendered from the 3D map at a known initial estimate of the vehicle pose. To evaluate different qualities of the semantic segmentation, we compare the results using the original network prediction (regular semantics) and a virtual rendering (improved semantics) generated from an accumulated 3D reconstruction of the tracking sequence while including dynamic objects from the original prediction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Atherton, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Herb of generating expected three-dimensional points of the map elements at the initial pose estimate based on the second data and third data by the electronic computing device; comparing the expected three-dimensional points of the map elements with the score image and/or the error image and its image derivatives to perform model- to-image alignment by the electronic computing device. This would be done to achieve reliable and accurate localization in real-time (see Herb abstract).
With respect to claim 2, Atherton discloses the semantic contour image is captured by a monocular camera of the assistance system (see at least [0029], “…one or more of the imaging devices 130 are configured to determine depth information and ranges based on monocular cues detected within imaging data captured thereby…”).
With respect to claim 3, Atherton discloses wherein: in the semantic contour image a semantic classification of objects is performed by the electronic computing device (see at least [0021-0024], [0033-0036], [0039], and [0052-0053]).
With respect to claim 4, Atherton teaches wherein: the semantically labeled map comprises at least one labeled landmark as a map element (see at least [0021-0024], [0033-0036], [0039], and [0052-0053]), which labeled landmark is in particular dependent on raw measurements from a capturing device of the assistance system (see at least [0021-0024], [0033-0036], [0039], and [0052-0053]).
With respect to claim 5, Alherton teaches wherein: the pose correction is used for a localization of the motor vehicle by the assistance system (see at least [0022-0026], [0045-0048], and [0053]).
With respect to claim 6, Alherton discloses wherein: the pose correction is performed by the electronic computing device in six degrees of freedom (see at least [0022-0026], [0045-0048], and [0053]).
With respect to claim 7, Alherton discloses wherein: the semantically labeled map is a sparse map of the surroundings (see at least [0020-0027], [0034-0038], and [0045-0048]).
With respect to claim 8, Alherton discloses wherein: the method is a correspondence-free method without correspondences between landmarks and measured features in the surroundings.
With respect to claim 9, Alherton discloses a computer program product comprising program code means, which, when they are executed by an electronic computing device, cause the electronic computing device to perform the method according to claim 1 (see at least [0060] and [0066]).
With respect to claim 10, Alherton discloses an assistance system for correcting a pose of a motor vehicle, the assistance system comprising at least one electronic computing device, wherein the assistance system is configured to perform a method according to claim 1 (see at least [0060] and [0066]).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667