DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims dated 08/20/2026 are being examined.
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 Amendment
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Claim 1 was amended to recite that the controller is configured to "operating the mobile robot to navigate the environment using the updated 3D map data". Amended claim 1 sets forth a practical application, and accordingly, the Examiner has withdrawn the previously set forth 101 rejections to the claims.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. After further search and consideration, Applicant's amendment to claim 1 necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments regarding Wang with respect to claims 3-7 have been considered, and are persuasive. Upon reconsideration, the closest prior arts do not teach the limitations of claims 3-7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3-7, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically the claimed limitations further defining the metric. The closest prior art Choi teaches the claimed metric and threshold value as recognized properties and feature point spatial coordinates exceeding a threshold range to determine whether the map should be updated ([0056]-0057]). Similarly, Orendovici et al. (US20250198798A1) alternatively teaches the determining whether the image is to be used to update the 3D map data further comprising: determining, based on the 3D map data, a metric that quantifies an amount of new information about the environment that is in the image; and ([0043]), but it would not be obvious/no motivation to modify the metric and threshold value criterion of Choi or Orendovici to that of the claimed limitations.
If Applicant elects to incorporate the allowable dependent claims into the independent claim 1, for notice of allowance to issue, applicant must timely cancel withdrawn claims 10-20. Claims 10-20 are not subject to rejoinder. In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. A withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined. MPEP 821.04.
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 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 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US-20210190512-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Choi.
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a method for operating a mobile robot (FIG. 1 autonomous vehicle 100_1 … 100_n; FIG. 6 at least one or more change detecting devices 100_1 ~101_n), the method comprising:
storing, in a memory of the mobile robot, 3D map data representing an environment (FIG. 2 storage unit 150; [0005] A high-definition map provides both 3D high-definition location information and detailed road information; [0116] the map updating server 200 distributes the high-definition map to each change detecting device 100_1 to 100_n (S100));
capturing, with a camera of the mobile robot, an image of the environment ([0047] The change detecting unit 110 may recognize road facility objects and their properties from a road image captured by a camera fixed to a probe vehicle and compare the recognized information with each object in the high-definition map, thereby detecting an object change in the road facility objects);
determining, with a processor of the mobile robot, based on the 3D map data, whether the image is to be used to update the 3D map data by (i) determining, based on the 3D map data, a metric that quantifies an amount of new information about the environment that is in the image (FIG. 6 obtain object coordinates S200 and detect change object S300; [0056] The change object detecting unit 113 compares the properties and feature point spatial coordinates of the recognized objects with the objects of the high-definition map…);
and (ii) determining that the image is to be used to update the 3D map based on a comparison of the metric with a threshold value ([0057] …if a difference between the recognized properties and feature point spatial coordinates of the road facility object and its corresponding properties and feature point spatial coordinates of the object in the high-definition map is a threshold range or less, the change object detecting unit 113 determines that the spatial coordinates of the objects match each other);
transmitting, with a transceiver of the mobile robot, the image to a remote server in response to determining that the image is to be used to update the 3D map data; and ([0056] …and, if a change object is detected, transmits object change information including the properties and feature point spatial coordinates of the change object and an image of the change object to the map updating server 200)
receiving, with the transceiver, updates to the 3D map data from the remote server, and operating the mobile robot to navigate the environment using the updated 3D map data (FIG. 6 distribute updated high-definition map S850; [0044] The process […] is repeated).
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches the method according to claim 1.
Choi also teaches the determining whether the image is to be used to update the 3D map data further comprising: determining that the image is to be used to update the 3D map in response to the metric exceeding a threshold value ([0057] …if a difference between the recognized properties and feature point spatial coordinates of the road facility object and its corresponding properties and feature point spatial coordinates of the object in the high-definition map is a threshold range or less, the change object detecting unit 113 determines that the spatial coordinates of the objects match each other).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, in view of Bailly et al. (US-20210004363-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Bailly.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches the method according to claim 1.
Liu does not explicitly teach further comprising: compressing, with the processor, the image prior to transmitting the image to the remote server.
However, Bailly teaches further comprising: compressing, with the processor, the image prior to transmitting the image to the remote server ([0108] …the vehicle computing system 120 may be configured to use data compression techniques to store and transfer map data thereby reducing storage and transmission costs).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify transmitting the image to the remote server as taught in Liu to incorporate the teachings of Bailly to include further comprising: compressing, with the processor, the image prior to transmitting the image to the remote server, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “reducing storage and transmission costs” (Bailly [0108]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20250198798A1 – Orendovici alternatively teaches in claim 1 the determining whether the image is to be used to update the 3D map data further comprising: determining, based on the 3D map data, a metric that quantifies an amount of new information about the environment that is in the image; and ([0043] As described herein, a metric associated with a portion of the map may include […] any other metric that measures how well the data represents the area of the environment that corresponds to the portion of the map)
determining that the image is to be used to update the 3D map based on a comparison of the metric with a threshold value ([0043] For instance, the system(s) may determine that a portion of the map is ready to be updated based at least on a metric value associated with the portion of the map satisfying a threshold).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights