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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 and 01/03/2025 was filed. 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 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev-Shwartz et al (2021/0162994) and further in view of Akbarzadeh (U.S. 2021/0063199).
1. As per claims 1,7,19 Shalev disclosed a method comprising:
obtaining first data associated with one or more image sensors [Camera] and second data associated with one or more RADAR sensors of the machine, the second data representative of at least one or more RADAR points [an autonomous vehicle may need to process and interpret visual information (e.g., information captured from a camera), information from radar or lidar, and may also use information obtained from other sources (e.g., from a GPS device, a speed sensor, an accelerometer, a suspension sensor, etc.)] (Shalev, Paragraph. 0003);
determining, that the first data represents, one or more locations associated with one or more landmarks located within an environment [Sensory information (such as images, radar signal, depth information from lidar or stereo processing of two or more images) of the environment may be processed together with position information, such as a GPS coordinate, vehicle's ego motion, etc. to determine a current location of the vehicle relative to the known landmarks] (Shalev, Paragraph. 0103);
updating a camera-based map to indicate the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks within the environment [by applying simple data augmentation techniques we can construct an adequate distribution and then perform offline validation after every major update of the sensing system], where camera sensors are part of the sensing system (Paragraph. 0522);
determining, based at least on the first data representing the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks, that at least a portion of the one or more RADAR points reflected off the one or more landmarks within the environment [In some embodiments, map database 160 may include data relating to the position, in a reference coordinate system, of various items, including roads, water features, geographic features, businesses, points of interest, restaurants, gas stations, etc. Map database 160 may store not only the locations of such items, but also descriptors relating to those items, including, for example, names associated with any of the stored features. In some embodiments, map database 160 may be physically located with other components of system 100. Alternatively, or additionally, map database 160 or a portion thereof may be located remotely with respect to other components of system 100 (e.g., processing unit 110). In such embodiments, information from map database 160 may be downloaded over a wired or wireless data connection to a network (e.g., over a cellular network and/or the Internet, etc.). In some cases, map database 160 may store a sparse data model including polynomial representations of certain road features (e.g., lane markings) or target trajectories for the host vehicle.] (Shalev, Paragraph. 0106);
updating, based on the at least the portion of the one or more RADAR points reflecting off the one or more landmarks, the camera-based map to include one or more indications that the one or more landmarks are associated with RADAR reflections [In some embodiments, image capture device 126 may act as a main or primary camera. Image capture devices 122-126 may be positioned behind rearview mirror 310 and positioned substantially side-by-side (e.g., 6 cm apart). Further, in some embodiments, as discussed above, one or more of image capture devices 122-126 may be mounted behind glare shield 380 that is flush with the windshield of vehicle 200. Such shielding may act to minimize the impact of any reflections from inside the car on image capture devices 122-126] (Shalev, Paragraph. 0151); and
However, Shalev did not disclose in detail sending third data representative of the camera-based map to one or more machines for use in navigating within the environment.
In the same field of endeavor Akbarzadeh disclosed, as such, the data converter 206 may convert the sensor data 102—e.g., using intrinsic and/or extrinsic parameters of the respective sensor(s)—such that the 3D world space locations of the sensor data 102 are relative to the origin of the vehicle 1500. A third subset of the sensor data 102 may be generated in 2D space. The data converter 206 may convert this sensor data 102—e.g., using the intrinsic and/or extrinsic parameters of the respective sensor(s)—such that the 2D space locations of the sensor data 102 are in 3D space and relative to the origin of the vehicle 1500 (Paragraph. 0062).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated as such, the data converter 206 may convert the sensor data 102—e.g., using intrinsic and/or extrinsic parameters of the respective sensor(s)—such that the 3D world space locations of the sensor data 102 are relative to the origin of the vehicle 1500. A third subset of the sensor data 102 may be generated in 2D space. The data converter 206 may convert this sensor data 102—e.g., using the intrinsic and/or extrinsic parameters of the respective sensor(s)—such that the 2D space locations of the sensor data 102 are in 3D space and relative to the origin of the vehicle 1500 as taught by Akbarzadeh in the method and system of Shalev to optimize the landmark detection mapping.
2. As per claim 2 Shalev-Akbarzadeh disclosed further comprising:
determining, that the first data represents, one or more second locations associated with one or more second landmarks located within the environment;
determining that the one or more RADAR points did not reflect off the one or more second landmarks (Akbarzadeh, Paragraph. 0046 & 0087); and
further updating, based at least on the one or more RADAR points not reflecting off the one or more second landmarks, the camera-based map to indicate the one or more second locations associated with the one or more second landmarks and to include one or more second indications that the one or more second landmarks are not associated with RADAR reflections (Akbarzadeh, Paragraph. 0126). Claim 2 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
3. As per claim 3 Shalev-Akbarzadeh disclosed further comprising one or more of:
determining a synchronization between the first data and the second data based at least on one or more first timestamps associated with the first data and one or more second timestamps associated with the second data (Shalev, Paragraph. 0133); or
determining an alignment between the first data and the second data based at least on transforming the one or more images and the one or more RADAR points into a common coordinate system (Shavlev, Paragraph. 0103).
4. As per claims 4,11-12 Shalev-Akbarzadeh disclosed wherein the determining that the at least the portion of the one or more RADAR points reflected off the one or more landmarks comprises: determining, based at least on the one or more locations, one or more areas within the environment that are associated with the one or more landmarks (Shalev, Paragraph. 0103);
determining, based at least on the second data, one or more three-dimensional (3D) locations associated with the one or more RADAR points within the environment; and determining that at least a portion of the one or more 3D locations correspond to the one or more areas (Shalev, Paragraph. 0552).
5. As per claims 5,13 Shalev-Akbarzadeh disclosed wherein the determining that at least the portion of the one or more RADAR points reflected off the one or more landmarks comprises: determining, based at least on the one or more locations, one or more two- dimensional (2D) areas associated with one or more images represented by the first data (Shalev, Paragraph. 0552); projecting one or more three-dimensional (3D) locations associated with the one or more RADAR points to one or more 2D points associated with the one or more images; and determining that at least a portion of the one or more 2D points correspond to the one or more 2D areas (Shalev, Paragraph. 0550).
6. As per claims 6,14 Shalev-Akbarzadeh disclosed further comprising: determining, based at least on one or more numbers of the one or more RADAR points that are associated with the one or more landmarks, one or more weights associated with the one or more landmarks; and further updating the camera-based map to indicate the one or more weights associated with the one or more landmarks (Shalev, Paragraph. 0815).
7. As per claim 8 Shalev-Akbarzadeh disclosed wherein the one or more processors are further to: determine, based that the first data represents, one or more second locations associated with one or more second landmarks located within the environment;
update the map to indicate the one or more second locations associated with the one or more second landmarks (Shalev, Paragraph. 0103);
determine, based at least on the first data representing the one or more second locations associated with the one or more second landmarks, that the second data does not represent one or more second points associated with the one or more second landmarks (Shalev, Paragraph. 0164); and
update, based at least the second data not representing the one or more second points associated with the one or more second landmarks, the map to include one or more second indications that the one or more second landmarks are not associated with reflections corresponding to the second type of sensor (Shalev, Paragraph. 0551).
8. As per claim 9 Shalev-Akbarzadeh disclosed wherein the one or more processors are further to:
determine a synchronization between the first data and the second data based at least on one or more first timestamps associated with the first data and one or more second timestamps associated with the second data (Shalev, Paragraph. 0147)
wherein the determination that the second data represents the one or more points are associated with the one or more landmarks is further based at least on the synchronization (Shalev, Paragraph. 0815).
9. As per claim 15 Sharlev-Akbarzadeh disclosed, wherein the one or more processors are further to send, to one or more machines navigating within the environment data representative of the map (Shalev, Paragraph. 0102).
10. As per claim 16 Sharlev-Akbarzadeh disclosed, wherein: the first type of sensor includes an image sensor; the second type of sensor includes at least one of: a RADAR sensor; a LIDAR sensor; an ultrasonic sensor; or a sonar sensor (Sharlev, Paragraph. 0108).
11. As per claim 17 Sharlev-Akbarzadeh disclosed, wherein the one or more processors are further to refrain from the map to include the one or more represented by the second data (Shalev, Paragraph. 0172).
12. As per claim 18,20 Sharlev-Akbarzadeh disclosed wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation (Shalev, Paragraph. 0242);
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets (Shalev, Paragraph. 0154-0155);
a system that provides one or more cloud gaming applications (Shalev, Paragraph. 0114);
a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device (Shalev, Paragraph. 0100);
a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for performing operations using one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for performing operations using one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system for performing operations using one or more multi-modal language models; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations (Shalev, Paragraph. 0190); a system for generating synthetic data; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs) (Shalev, Paragraph. 0599); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (Shalev, Paragraph. 0551).
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.
13. Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 7 is directed to a system, claim 19 is directed to a processor. Therefore, claims 1, 7 and 19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 7 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising: obtaining first data associated with one or more image sensors of a machine and second data associated with one or more RADAR sensors of the machine, the second data representative of at least one or more RADAR points;
determining, that the first data represents one or more locations associated with one or more landmarks located within an environment;
updating a camera-based map to indicate the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks within the environment;
determining, based at least on the first data representing the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks, that at least a portion of the one or more RADAR points reflected off the one or more landmarks within the environment;
updating, based on the at least the portion of the one or more RADAR points reflecting off the one or more landmarks, the camera-based map to include one or more indications that the one or more landmarks are associated with RADAR reflections; and
sending third data representative of the camera-based map to one or more machines for use in navigating within the environment.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system comprising: one or more processors to:
obtain first data associated with a first type of sensor of a machine within an environment and second data associated with a second type of sensor of the machine;
determine, that the first data represents one or more locations associated with one or more landmarks located within the environment;
update a map to indicate the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks;
determine, based at least on the first data representing the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks, that the second data represents one or more points that are associated with the one or more landmarks; and
update, based at least the one or more points being associated with the one or more landmarks, the map to include one or more indications that the one or more landmarks are associated with reflections corresponding to the second type of sensor.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 7 and 19 further recite “
A system comprising: one or more processors to:
obtain first data associated with a first type of sensor of a machine within an environment and second data associated with a second type of sensor of the machine;
determine, that the first data represents one or more locations associated with one or more landmarks located within the environment;
update a map to indicate the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks;
determine, based at least on the first data representing the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks, that the second data represents one or more points that are associated with the one or more landmarks; and
update, based at least the one or more points being associated with the one or more landmarks, the map to include one or more indications that the one or more landmarks are associated with reflections corresponding to the second type of sensor.
” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. ***In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “updating, based at least on the at least the portion of the one or more points being associated with the one or more landmarks, a camera-based map to indicate the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks and one or more indications that the one or more landmarks are associated with RADAR reflections” in claim 1 and “determine, based at least on the one or more locations and second data associated with a second type of sensor, that at least a portion of one or more points represented by the second data are associated with the one or more landmarks” in claim 7 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “the map to include one or more indications that the one or more landmarks are associated with the second type of sensor” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because 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 performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-18 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-18 and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1,7 and 19.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument is as follows.
Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “obtaining first data associated with one or more image sensors of a machine and second data associated with one or more RADAR sensors of the machine, the second data representative of at least one or more RADAR points; determining that the first data represents one or more locations associated with one or more landmarks located within an environment;…determining, based at least on the first data representing the one or more locations associated with one or more landmarks within the environment”.
As to applicant’s argument, Shalev disclosed a method comprising:
obtaining first data associated with one or more image sensors [Camera] and second data associated with one or more RADAR sensors of the machine, the second data representative of at least one or more RADAR points [an autonomous vehicle may need to process and interpret visual information (e.g., information captured from a camera), information from radar or lidar, and may also use information obtained from other sources (e.g., from a GPS device, a speed sensor, an accelerometer, a suspension sensor, etc.)] (Shalev, Paragraph. 0003);
determining, that the first data represents, one or more locations associated with one or more landmarks located within an environment [Sensory information (such as images, radar signal, depth information from lidar or stereo processing of two or more images) of the environment may be processed together with position information, such as a GPS coordinate, vehicle's ego motion, etc. to determine a current location of the vehicle relative to the known landmarks] (Shalev, Paragraph. 0103);
updating a camera-based map to indicate the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks within the environment [by applying simple data augmentation techniques we can construct an adequate distribution and then perform offline validation after every major update of the sensing system], where camera sensors are part of the sensing system (Paragraph. 0522);
determining, based at least on the first data representing the one or more locations associated with the one or more landmarks, that at least a portion of the one or more RADAR points reflected off the one or more landmarks within the environment [In some embodiments, map database 160 may include data relating to the position, in a reference coordinate system, of various items, including roads, water features, geographic features, businesses, points of interest, restaurants, gas stations, etc. Map database 160 may store not only the locations of such items, but also descriptors relating to those items, including, for example, names associated with any of the stored features. In some embodiments, map database 160 may be physically located with other components of system 100. Alternatively, or additionally, map database 160 or a portion thereof may be located remotely with respect to other components of system 100 (e.g., processing unit 110). In such embodiments, information from map database 160 may be downloaded over a wired or wireless data connection to a network (e.g., over a cellular network and/or the Internet, etc.). In some cases, map database 160 may store a sparse data model including polynomial representations of certain road features (e.g., lane markings) or target trajectories for the host vehicle.] (Shalev, Paragraph. 0106);
updating, based on the at least the portion of the one or more RADAR points reflecting off the one or more landmarks, the camera-based map to include one or more indications that the one or more landmarks are associated with RADAR reflections [In some embodiments, image capture device 126 may act as a main or primary camera. Image capture devices 122-126 may be positioned behind rearview mirror 310 and positioned substantially side-by-side (e.g., 6 cm apart). Further, in some embodiments, as discussed above, one or more of image capture devices 122-126 may be mounted behind glare shield 380 that is flush with the windshield of vehicle 200. Such shielding may act to minimize the impact of any reflections from inside the car on image capture devices 122-126] (Shalev, Paragraph. 0151).
Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “sending third data representative of the camera-based map to one or more machines for use in navigating within the environment”.
As to applicant’s argument, Akbarzadeh disclosed, as such, the data converter 206 may convert the sensor data 102—e.g., using intrinsic and/or extrinsic parameters of the respective sensor(s)—such that the 3D world space locations of the sensor data 102 are relative to the origin of the vehicle 1500. A third subset of the sensor data 102 may be generated in 2D space. The data converter 206 may convert this sensor data 102—e.g., using the intrinsic and/or extrinsic parameters of the respective sensor(s)—such that the 2D space locations of the sensor data 102 are in 3D space and relative to the origin of the vehicle 1500 (Paragraph. 0062).
Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “wherein the determining that at least the portion of the one or more RADAR points reflected off the one or more landmarks comprises: determining, based at least on the one or more locations, one or more two- dimensional (2D) areas associated with one or more images represented by the first data; projecting one or more three-dimensional (3D) locations associated with the one or more RADAR points to one or more 2D points associated with the one or more images; and determining that at least a portion of the one or more 2D points correspond to the one or more 2D areas.
As to applicant’s argument Shalev disclosed, “it solves the problem of lifting the 2D information from the image plane into the 3D world as follows. The map describes all of the lanes as curves in the 3D world. Localization of the ego vehicle on the map enables to trivially lift every object on the road from the image plane to its 3D position (Paragraph. 0552).
Shalev disclosed, “The low price enables a scalable system. The texture enables to understand the semantics of the scene, including lane marks, traffic light, intentions of pedestrians, and more. The high resolution enables a long range of detection. Furthermore, detecting lane marks and objects in the same domain enables excellent semantic lateral accuracy. The two main disadvantages of cameras are: (1) the information is 2D and estimating longitudinal distance is difficult” (Paragraph. 0550).
Conclusion
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
17. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
18. 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 un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667