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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 25, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 3, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-7, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 1-2, “wherein detecting one or more inconsistencies …” should read “wherein the detecting one or more inconsistencies …”.
Claim 3, lines 1-2, “one or more inconsistencies” should read “the one or more inconsistencies”.
Claim 4, line 1, “the memory” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the memory” to “the computer-readable memory”.
Claim 4, line 7, “wherein performing real-time mapping …” should read “wherein the performing real-time mapping …”.
Claim 4, line 7, “real-time mapping” should read “the real-time mapping”.
Claim 5, line 1, “the memory” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the memory” to “the computer-readable memory”.
Claim 6, line 1, “wherein performing the real-time mapping …” should read “wherein the performing the real-time mapping …”.
Claim 7, line 1, “the memory” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the memory” to “the computer-readable memory”.
Claim 10, line 2, “at least one computing device” should read “the at least one computing device”.
Claim 12, line 7, “sufficient new map data” should read “the sufficient new map data”.
Claim 13, lines 5 and 10, “sufficient new map data” should read “the sufficient new map data”.
Claim 14, line 2, “at least one computing device” should read “the at least one computing device”.
Claim 14, line 4, “sufficient new map data” should read “the sufficient new map data”.
Claim 17, lines 1-2, “wherein detecting one or more inconsistencies …” should read “wherein the detecting one or more inconsistencies …”.
Claim 17, line 1, “one or more inconsistencies” should read “the one or more inconsistencies”.
Claim 18, line 6, “wherein performing real-time mapping …” should read “wherein the performing real-time mapping …”.
Claim 18, line 6, “real-time mapping” should read “the real-time mapping”.
Claim 20, line 1, “wherein performing the real-time mapping …” should read “wherein the performing the real-time mapping …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) is/are:
“at least one computing device” in claims 8, 10, and 14.
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 11-13 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.
As to claim 11, the limitation “the new map data” at line 4 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a new map data”.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,579,627. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover the same inventive concept, and each of the limitations of claim 1, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 19, and 20 of the current application can be mapped directly to the limitations of claims 1, 3-9, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,579,627 with claim 1, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 19, and 20 of the current application being broader in scope than claims 1, 3-9, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,579,627.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,761. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover the same inventive concept, and each of the limitations of claim 1, 3, 5-8, 10-15, 17, 19, and 20 of the current application can be mapped directly to the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,761 with claim 1, 3, 5-8, 10-15, 17, 19, and 20 of the current application being broader in scope than claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,761.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JIANG et al., US 2020/0191601 A1, hereinafter referred to as JIANG.
As to claim 1, JIANG teaches an autonomous vehicle comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate output indicative of a driving environment of the autonomous vehicle (see at least paragraphs 29-35 regarding based on the real-time traffic information, MPOI information, and location information, as well as real-time local environment data detected or sensed by sensor system 115 (e.g., obstacles, objects, nearby vehicles). See also at least paragraphs 53-55);
a processor (see at least FIG. 3 and paragraphs 32-33 regarding one or more processors); and
a computer-readable memory in communication with the processor and having stored thereon a navigational map and computer-executable instructions to cause the processor to (see at least paragraphs 103-104 regarding computer-accessible storage medium 1509 (also known as a machine-readable storage medium or a computer-readable medium) on which is stored one or more sets of instructions or software (e.g., module, unit, and/or logic 1528)):
access the output from the at least one sensor (see at least FIG. 2 and paragraph 23 regarding sensor system. See also at least paragraphs 53-55. See also at least paragraph 90 regarding the set of report messages may indicate, identify, etc., a first set of traffic control devices detected in an environment by the set of ADVs, as discussed above. The set of report messages received from the ADVs may also include sensor data (e.g., video data, image data, radar data LIDAR data, etc.)),
access the navigational map (see at least paragraph 50 regarding the reference line generator 405 may generate the reference line based on map and route information 311 (illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B). As discussed above, the map and route information 311 may be preexisting map data (e.g., map data that was previously downloaded or stored) and/or may be map data that is generated on the fly (e.g., map data for an area/location that is generated as the ADV travels through the area/location). See also at least paragraphs 57-62),
detect one or more inconsistencies between the output of the at least one sensor and the navigational map (see at least paragraphs 53-60 regarding the ADV 101 may detect one or more changes to one or more traffic control devices in the environment 505. For example, the ADV 101 may have map data (e.g., data that indicates geographical locations, GPS coordinates, locations of roads, streets, freeways, etc., distances of roads, streets, freeways, etc., locations and/or types of traffic control devices, etc.) that indicates that there should be a stop sign (e.g., traffic control device 511) near the current location of the ADV 101. However, one or more sensors of the ADV 101 (e.g., a camera) may detect a yield sign (e.g., traffic control device 513) instead of a stop sign near the current location of the ADV 101. The ADV 101 may determine that the map data does not indicate that there is a yield sign at the current location of the ADV 101 (e.g., the ADV 101 may determine that a traffic control device was added to a location/area). The ADV 101 may also determine that the map data indicates that there should be a stop sign near the current location of the ADV 101, but the ADV 101 may not detect the stop sign (e.g., the ADV 101 may determine that a traffic control device was removed from a location/area)),
perform real-time mapping of the driving environment based on the output of the at least one sensor in response to detecting the one or more inconsistencies (see at least paragraphs 53-60. See also at least paragraphs 75-80 regarding the map component 610 may generate updated map data in response to determining that there are one or more differences between the first set of traffic control devices indicated by the one or more report messages and a second set of traffic control devices indicated by the map data 612. The map component 610 may use various techniques, methods, algorithms, operations, etc., to generate the updated map data based on the sensor data),
update the navigational map based on the real-time mapped driving environment (see at least paragraphs 75-80 regarding the map component 610 may update the map data 612 to add one or more traffic control devices to the map data 612), and
navigate the autonomous vehicle using the updated navigational map (see at least Abstract and paragraphs 25-27. See also at least paragraph 62. See also at least paragraph 81 regarding the map component 610 may generate updated map data 612 and may transmit the updated map data 612 to the ADVs 101. See also at least paragraph 92).
As to claim 3, JIANG teaches wherein detecting one or more inconsistencies between the output of the at least one sensor and the navigational map comprises: determining that a road object in the output of the at least one sensor does not match a map object in the navigational map (see at least paragraphs 68-70 regarding one or more traffic control devices (that were detected by the ADV 101 in the environment) that do not match traffic control devices that are indicted in map data of the ADV 101. For example, the ADV 101 may have map data (e.g., preexisting map data, downloaded map data, etc.) that may indicate the types and/or locations of traffic control devices in an environment (e.g., in a geographical area/location). The sensor system 115 of the ADV 101 (e.g., one or more sensors) may detect a first traffic control device in the environment. The sensor component 411 of the ADV 101 may determine that the first traffic control device that was not indicated in the map data was detected); and detecting the one or more inconsistencies in response to determining that the road object does not match the map object (see at least paragraphs 68-70 regarding one or more traffic control devices (that were detected by the ADV 101 in the environment) that do not match traffic control devices that are indicted in map data of the ADV 101. Determine whether there are one or more differences between a first set of traffic control devices indicated by the one or more report messages and a second set of traffic control devices indicated by the map data 612).
As to claim 8, Examiner notes claim 8 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 15, Examiner notes claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 17, Examiner notes claim 17 recites similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected under the same rational.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al., US 2020/0191601 A1, hereinafter referred to as JIANG, in view of Rusignola et al., US 2020/0363215 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rusignola, respectively.
As to claim 2, JIANG does not explicitly teach wherein the real-time mapping is performed locally on the autonomous vehicle.
However, such matter is taught by Rusignola (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 26 and 36-37 regarding the map inconsistency service 122 functions to determine when features illustrated in the authoritative high definition map stored in map database 123 are inconsistent with features detected by sensors 104-106. While sensors 104-106 may capture data at a lower resolution than is reflected in the authoritative high definition map, the data captured by sensors 104-106 can be sufficient to determine such inconsistencies. Detecting these inconsistencies is important because the authoritative high definition map can become outdated and no longer reflect the configuration of the road. The data from sensors 104-106 reflect the current configuration of the road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Rusignola which teaches wherein the real-time mapping is performed locally on the autonomous vehicle with the system of JIANG as both systems are directed to a system and method for updating the map for autonomous vehicle navigation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the real-time mapping is performed locally on the autonomous vehicle and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of JIANG.
As to claim 9, Examiner notes claim 9 recites similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 16, Examiner notes claim 16 recites similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al., US 2020/0191601 A1, hereinafter referred to as JIANG, in view of ELDAR et al., US 2021/0064057 A1, hereinafter referred to as ELDAR, respectively.
As to claim 4, JIANG teaches determining a type of the road object in response to determining that the road object does not match the map object (see at least paragraphs 68-70 regarding the map component 610 may determine the types and/or locations of the traffic control devices indicated by the report messages. The map component 610 may compare the types and/or locations of the types and/or locations of the traffic control devices indicated by the report messages, with the types and/or locations of the traffic control devices indicated by the map data 612 to determine whether there are differences. In another example, the report messages may indicate the one or more traffic control devices that do not match the map data 612, JIANG).
JIANG does not explicitly teach selecting one or more of a plurality of sub-mapping modules based on the determined type of the road object, wherein performing real-time mapping comprises executing the selected one or more of the plurality of sub-mapping modules.
However, such matter is taught by ELDAR (see at least paragraphs 353-382 regarding mapping the lane mark. An exemplary process 2600A for mapping a lane mark for use in autonomous vehicle navigation. See also at least paragraphs 452-457 regarding a system for mapping road segment free spaces and/or for autonomously navigating a host vehicle along a road segment. An exemplary process 3400 for mapping road segment free spaces. See also at least paragraphs 473-475 regarding a navigation system for an autonomous vehicle that may be configured to identify traffic lights along a roadway traveled by an autonomous vehicle. The navigation system includes functionality for mapping traffic lights and for determining traffic light relevancy for use in autonomous vehicle navigation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of ELDAR which teaches selecting one or more of a plurality of sub-mapping modules based on the determined type of the road object, wherein performing real-time mapping comprises executing the selected one or more of the plurality of sub-mapping modules with the system of JIANG as both systems are directed to a system and method for updating the map for autonomous vehicle navigation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of selecting one or more of a plurality of sub-mapping modules based on the determined type of the road object, wherein performing real-time mapping comprises executing the selected one or more of the plurality of sub-mapping modules and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of JIANG.
As to claim 18, Examiner notes claim 18 recites similar limitations to claim 4 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 5, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al., US 2020/0191601 A1, hereinafter referred to as JIANG, in view of SHASHUA et al., US 2019/0384295 A1, hereinafter referred to as SHASHUA, respectively.
As to claim 5, JIANG does not explicitly teach wherein the memory further has stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the processor to determine whether the real-time mapping of the driving environment has generated sufficient new map data for the updating of the navigational map.
However, such matter is taught by SHASHUA (see at least paragraphs 428-429 regarding the server may use one or more criteria for determining whether new data received from the vehicles should trigger an update to the model or trigger creation of new data. For example, when the new data indicates that a previously recognized landmark at a specific location no longer exists, or is replaced by another landmark, the server may determine that the new data should trigger an update to the model. As another example, when the new data indicates that a road segment has been closed, and when this has been corroborated by data received from other vehicles, the server may determine that the new data should trigger an update to the model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of SHASHUA which teaches wherein the memory further has stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the processor to determine whether the real-time mapping of the driving environment has generated sufficient new map data for the updating of the navigational map with the system of JIANG as both systems are directed to a system and method for updating the map for autonomous vehicle navigation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining whether the real-time mapping of the driving environment has generated sufficient new map data for the updating of the navigational map and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of JIANG.
As to claim 10, Examiner notes claim 10 recites similar limitations to claim 5 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 19, Examiner notes claim 19 recites similar limitations to claim 5 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al., US 2020/0191601 A1, hereinafter referred to as JIANG, in view of Duan et al., US 2021/0331703 A1, hereinafter referred to as Duan, respectively.
As to claim 6, JIANG teaches another criteria, condition, parameter, etc., may be whether a threshold number of report messages for an environment have been received. For example, the map component 610 may determine whether at least five, at least ten, or some other appropriate number of report messages indicating changes in the traffic control devices for the environment, have been received. If at least the threshold number of report messages have been received, the map component 610 may determine that there are one or more differences between a first set of traffic control devices indicated by the one or more report messages and a second set of traffic control devices indicated by the map data 612 (see at least paragraph 71, JIANG). Further, JIANG teaches if there are changes in the one or more traffic control devices for the environment, the process 800 may process the sensor data, and the process 800 generates updated map data based on the sensor data (see at least paragraph 92, JIANG), however, JIANG does not explicitly teach wherein performing the real-time mapping of the driving environment is further in response to determining that a number of the one or more inconsistencies is greater than a threshold number.
However, such matter is taught by Duan (see at least paragraphs 81-93 regarding the consistency checking component 122 can determine an inconsistency based at least in part on a number of pixels that are associated with an “off-road” (e.g., not drivable) indication being greater than or equal to a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Duan which teaches wherein performing the real-time mapping of the driving environment is further in response to determining that a number of the one or more inconsistencies is greater than a threshold number with the system of JIANG as both systems are directed to a system and method for detecting changes in an environment, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein performing the real-time mapping of the driving environment is further in response to determining that a number of the one or more inconsistencies is greater than a threshold number and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of JIANG.
As to claim 7, JIANG teaches wherein the memory further has stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the processor to: refrain from performing the real-time mapping of the driving environment in response to the number of the one or more inconsistencies being less than the threshold number (see at least paragraph 60 regarding the server may also use one or more criteria, parameters, conditions, etc., to determine whether the traffic control devices in the environment 505 have changed. See also at least FIG. 8 and paragraphs 91-92 regarding if there are no changes to the one or more traffic control devices for an environment (e.g., a geographical area/location), the process 800 ends, JIANG); and navigate the autonomous vehicle using the navigational map and the output of the at least one sensor (see at least Abstract and paragraphs 25-27. See also at least paragraph 81 regarding the map component 610 may generate updated map data 612 and may transmit the updated map data 612 to the ADVs 101. See also at least paragraph 92, JIANG).
As to claim 20, Examiner notes claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 6 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al., US 2020/0191601 A1, hereinafter referred to as JIANG, in view of SHASHUA et al., US 2019/0384295 A1, hereinafter referred to as SHASHUA, and further in view of Reschka et al., US 2020/0310450 A1, hereinafter referred to as Reschka, respectively.
As to claim 11, JIANG teaches determining a first parameter related to a consistency between the new map data and the navigational map (see at least paragraph 60 regarding the server may also use one or more criteria, parameters, conditions, etc., to determine whether the traffic control devices in the environment 505 have changed. This may allow the server to more accurately detect that the traffic control devices in the environment have changed. See also at least paragraphs 70-74 regarding one or more criteria, parameters, conditions, JIANG).
JIANG, as modified by SHASHUA, does not explicitly teach determining a second parameter related to whether the new map data provides sufficient drivable space for the autonomous vehicle.
However, such matter is taught by Reschka (see at least paragraphs 81-84 regarding it is determined that an individual segment is similar to a segment or stereotype from the verified region (e.g., the similarity score or metric meets or exceeds a threshold value), at operation 510, the process 500 can identify that segment as potentially drivable. See also at least paragraph 102 regarding the second map data comprising information about a plurality of second segments of a second drivable surface navigable by an autonomous vehicle, a second segment of the plurality of second segments associated with one or more second parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Reschka which teaches determining a second parameter related to whether the new map data provides sufficient drivable space for the autonomous vehicle with the system of JIANG, as modified by SHASHUA, as both systems are directed to a system and method for updating the map for autonomous vehicle navigation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining a second parameter related to whether the new map data provides sufficient drivable space for the autonomous vehicle and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of JIANG as modified by SHASHUA.
As to claim 12, JIANG teaches comparing the first parameter to a first parameter threshold (see at least paragraphs 60 and 69-73 regarding the map component 610 may compare the types and/or locations of the types and/or locations of the traffic control devices indicated by the report messages, with the types and/or locations of the traffic control devices indicated by the map data 612 to determine whether there are differences, JIANG); and determining that the mapping of the driving environment has generated sufficient new map data in response to the first parameter being greater than the first parameter threshold and the second parameter being greater than the second parameter threshold (see at least paragraphs 69-73 regarding the map component 610 may determine whether there are one or more differences between a first set of traffic control devices indicated by the one or more report messages and a second set of traffic control devices indicated by the map data 612, based on one or more criteria, parameters, conditions. One criteria, condition, parameter, etc., may be whether a threshold number of ADVs 101 and/or vehicles have sent report messages for an environment. For example, the map component 610 may determine whether at least five, at least ten, or some other appropriate number of ADVs 101 and/or vehicles have transmitted report messages indicating changes in the traffic control devices for the environment, JIANG).
JIANG, as modified by SHASHUA, does not explicitly teach comparing the second parameter to a second parameter threshold.
However, such matter is taught by Reschka (see at least paragraphs 81-84 regarding it is determined that an individual segment is similar to a segment or stereotype from the verified region (e.g., the similarity score or metric meets or exceeds a threshold value), at operation 510, the process 500 can identify that segment as potentially drivable. See also at least paragraph 102 regarding the second map data comprising information about a plurality of second segments of a second drivable surface navigable by an autonomous vehicle, a second segment of the plurality of second segments associated with one or more second parameters. See also at least paragraph 102 regarding a second segment of the plurality of second segments associated with one or more second parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Reschka which teaches comparing the second parameter to a second parameter threshold with the system of JIANG, as modified by SHASHUA, as both systems are directed to a system and method for updating the map for autonomous vehicle navigation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of comparing the second parameter to a second parameter threshold and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of JIANG as modified by SHASHUA.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al., US 2020/0191601 A1, hereinafter referred to as JIANG, in view of SHASHUA et al., US 2019/0384295 A1, hereinafter referred to as SHASHUA, in view of Reschka et al., US 2020/0310450 A1, hereinafter referred to as Reschka, and further in view of Grufman et al., US 2017/0364090 A1, hereinafter referred to as Grufman, respectively.
As to claim 13, JIANG teaches continuing the mapping of the driving environment based on the output of the at least one sensor in response to the determining that the mapping of the driving environment has not generated sufficient new map data (see at least paragraphs 75-80 regarding the map component 610 may use various techniques, methods, algorithms, operations, etc., to generate the updated map data based on the sensor data, JIANG).
JIANG, as modified by SHASHUA and Reschka, does not explicitly teach determining that the mapping of the driving environment has not generated sufficient new map data in response to at least one of: the first parameter being less than the first parameter threshold and the second parameter being less than the second parameter threshold.
However, such matter is taught by Grufman (see at least paragraphs 77-80 regarding each position estimate may have a confidence score (or weight, as indicated above), pose estimation may be accompanied with confidence scores, object classification (or identification) may be accompanied with confidence scores, grass detector determinations may have corresponding confidence scores, and so on. In some embodiments, features, parameters or characteristics that have a confidence score below a threshold may not be represented on any generated map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Grufman which teaches determining that the mapping of the driving environment has not generated sufficient new map data in response to at least one of: the first parameter being less than the first parameter threshold and the second parameter being less than the second parameter threshold with the system of JIANG, as modified by SHASHUA and Reschka, as both systems are directed to a system and method for providing the navigation information to the vehicle, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining that the mapping of the driving environment has not generated sufficient new map data in response to at least one of: the first parameter being less than the first parameter threshold and the second parameter being less than the second parameter threshold and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of JIANG as modified by SHASHUA and Reschka.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al., US 2020/0191601 A1, hereinafter referred to as JIANG, in view of SHASHUA et al., US 2019/0384295 A1, hereinafter referred to as SHASHUA, and further in view of Jafari Tafti et al., US 2019/0049990 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jafari Tafti, respectively.
As to claim 14, JIANG, as modified by SHASHUA, does not explicitly teach generating a minimum risk conditions (MRC) signal in response to determining that the mapping of the driving environment has not generated sufficient new map data for the updating of the navigational map.
However, such matter is taught by Jafari Tafti (see at least paragraphs 59-60 regarding At 550, if insufficient new map tiles are received from the cloud-based system, and the amount of applicable data within relevant map tiles (“Y”) that remain in the autonomous vehicle's memory is less than “X,” then the autonomous vehicle can be configured to initiate a mitigation strategy. At 560, the autonomous vehicle can be configured to execute a mitigation strategy. With one example mitigation strategy, the autonomous system can prompt the driver to take control over the vehicle. Alternatively, the autonomous system can be configured to gradually reduce the speed of the vehicle in order to extend the amount of time that the stored relevant map tiles remain relevant. With one or more embodiments, if no human driver assumes control over the vehicle, then the autonomous system can be configured to navigate the vehicle to achieve a minimal risk condition. For example, the autonomous system can control the vehicle to stop at a shoulder of a road or to drive the vehicle to a side road, for example. With one or more embodiments, the minimal risk condition can be determined based on the map tiles that are stored in the memory/buffer of the autonomous vehicle. Alternatively, the minimal risk condition can be determined by the cloud-based system. In one or more embodiments, the cloud-based system can periodically transmit one or more parameters relating to the minimal risk condition to the autonomous vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Jafari Tafti which teaches generating a minimum risk conditions (MRC) signal in response to determining that the mapping of the driving environment has not generated sufficient new map data for the updating of the navigational map with the system of JIANG, as modified by SHASHUA, as both systems are directed to a system and method for providing the navigation map information to vehicle, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of generating a minimum risk conditions (MRC) signal in response to determining that the mapping of the driving environment has not generated sufficient new map data for the updating of the navigational map and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of JIANG as modified by SHASHUA.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wheeler et al. (US 20180188045 A1) regarding a system for updating high-definition maps based on sensor data collected by to autonomous vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666