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 .
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).
Claims 1 and 11 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of Patent Application No. US 12055939 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 11 of the current application and claims 1 and 10 of application US 12055939 B2 all recite similar limitations of: forming processable parts from point cloud data, merging into a concave polygon the processable parts, creating a graphing polygon based on the concave polygon comprising creating a convex polygon having an exterior edge, and the exterior edge of the convex polygon has a weight based on multiple factors. All of the limitations in claims 1 and 11 of the current application can be found in the limitations of claims 1 and 10 of application US 12055939 B2.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Drawing Objections
Fig. 19 of the drawings is objected to as it uses a scheme where numbers are inserted into the drawings to represent items instead of descriptive labels. This makes the drawings useless without a key, a legend, or a specification. The drawings submitted with a patent application are supposed to help describe and set the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and when the meaning of the drawings cannot be easily or clearly derived without a specification, key, or legend, the value of the drawings and use is diminished.
Please use descriptive worded labels next to the element numbers or inside the boxes, especially where the drawing elements cannot be easily understandable. Proper action is requested.
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 8-10 and 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites “said creating”. It is unclear if “said creating” in claim 8 refers to “creating a graphing polygon” or “creating a convex polygon” in claim 1, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “said creating” in claim 8 to refer back to “creating a graphing polygon”.
Regarding claims 9-10, these claims depend from claim 8 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 8 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 8 noted above.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites “forming a driving margin”. It is unclear if “a driving margin” in claim 10 refers to “a driving margin” in claim 8 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a driving margin”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a driving margin” in claim 10 to mean “the driving margin”.
Regarding claim 18, “the SDSF trajectory” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “”the SDSF trajectory to mean “a SDSF trajectory”.
Regarding claims 19-20, these claims depend from claim 18 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 18 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 18 noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 11 recites “System for navigating a path over a surface comprising a device controller comprising: a first processor configured for forming point cloud data representing the surface into processable parts;
a second processor configured for merging into a concave polygon the processable parts; and
a third processor configured for creating a graphing polygon comprising creating a convex polygon having an exterior edge;
wherein the exterior edge has a weight based on: a directionality; a capacity; a cost modifier; a drive mode; a current surface; an edge category; and combinations thereof”.
The limitations of forming and merging processable parts, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by “processors”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the processors “forming and merging” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of forming point cloud data into processable parts and merging the processable parts into a concave polygon. For example, the processors “forming and merging” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking about and forming and merging processable parts in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of creating a graphing/convex polygon, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a “processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the creating from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a “processor” language, the claim encompasses the user thinking and creating graphing/convex polygons in his mind. Thus, this limitation is also a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using processors to perform forming, merging, and creating. The processors in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions of forming, merging, and creating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of system and device controller amount to generic/conventional machines. The additional elements of processors to perform forming, merging, and creating amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as additional processors and a transient object, which amount to generic/conventional machines. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 11.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of a vehicle based on the features. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson (US 20190278293 A1) in view of Fathi (US 20210312710 A1) and Nakamura (US 20090309898 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Levinson discloses method of navigating a path on a surface comprising (Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0033);
forming into processable parts point cloud data representing the surface (Paragraphs 0023-0024; “As can be understood, the map generation component 108 can generate a 3D map including a mesh, wherein the mesh includes a plurality of polygons that define the shape of objects in the environment. In some instances, the map generation component 108 can include functionality to divide portions of the mesh into tiles representing a discrete portion of the environment”);
the exterior edge has a weight based on: a directionality; a capacity; a cost modifier; a drive mode; a current surface; an edge category; and combinations thereof (Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0046, 0110-0114; Edges are part of polygons which have different categories (semantic information)).
Levinson does not specifically state merging into a concave polygon the processable parts.
However, Fathi teaches merging into a concave polygon the processable parts (Paragraphs 0064-0066, 0074, Fig. 1; “finding all geometric surface patches in 220; merging geometric surface patches to generate geometric surfaces in 225; finding and optimizing concave hulls for each geometric surface in 230”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Levinson with merging the processable parts into a concave polygon of Fathi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a point cloud may contain a lot of data points and noise. Merging processable parts of the point cloud into concave polygons allows structures of interest to be recognized more accurately. One would have been motivated to combine Levinson with Fathi as this achieves more accurate surface detection. As stated in Fathi, “Certain segmentation and related steps are conducted in both 105 (which operates to isolate the structure of interest from the processed 3D data) and 200 (which operates on the isolated structure of interest) in order to reduce noise and increase accuracy. A prerequisite for such segmentation is to generate a surface continuity image in which can then be segmented into regions of interest according to elevation, surface continuity, overlap and occlusion, surface area, enclosing concave hull shape” (Paragraph 0066).
Levinson does not specifically state creating a graphing polygon based on the concave polygon comprising creating a convex polygon having an exterior edge.
However, Nakamura teaches creating a graphing polygon based on the concave polygon comprising creating a convex polygon having an exterior edge (Paragraph 0064, 0077; “the concave polygon is divided repeatedly until the concave polygon transforms into a convex polygon”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Levinson with creating a graphing/convex polygon based on the concave polygon of Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that convex polygons can be broken down into primitive data such as triangles for rendering maps. This allows the rendering to be processed quicker while reducing computing burden. One would have been motivated to combine Levinson with Nakamura as this achieves more efficient rendering. As stated in Nakamura, “there are provided a rendering apparatus and a rendering method which can avoid the problem described above and execute the quick rendering process without increasing the processing burden of the subdivision or the like even in the case where the vector pattern is rasterized and rendered on the curved surface” (Paragraph 0142).
Regarding claim 2, Levinson discloses choosing the path from a starting point to an ending point based on the graphing polygon (Paragraphs 0028, 0138-0141, Fig. 11; The decimated mesh contains graphing polygons; A route or trajectory comprises a starting and ending point).
Regarding claim 11, Levinson discloses system for navigating a path over a surface comprising a device controller comprising (Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0022, 0033; Device controller is mapped to computing device(s) 106);
a first processor configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075);
a second processor configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075);
a third processor configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The system taught/disclosed in claim 11 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, Levinson discloses a fourth processor configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
choosing the path from a starting point to an ending point based on the graphing polygon (Paragraphs 0028, 0073-0075, 0138-0141, Fig. 11; The decimated mesh contains graphing polygons; A route or trajectory comprises a starting and ending point).
Regarding claim 16, Levinson discloses said third processor is configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
sorting the point cloud data according to a substantially discontinuous surface feature (SDSF) filter comprising categories of points (Paragraphs 0015-0017, 0023-0026);
locating an SDSF point based on whether the categories of points, in combination, meet a first criterion (Paragraphs 0025, 0096; Criterion is mapped to classical or machine learning algorithms).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson, Fathi, and Nakamura, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Morales (US 20170243404 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Levinson discloses point cloud data and filtering a dynamic object.
Levinson does not specifically state filtering the point cloud data comprising: removing a point representing a transient object and/or a point representing an outlier from the point cloud data and defining removed points; replacing removed points having a height.
However, Morales teaches filtering the point cloud data comprising: removing a point representing a transient object and/or a point representing an outlier from the point cloud data and defining removed points (Paragraphs 0124-0125; Outlier is mapped to points above a height threshold);
replacing removed points having a height (Paragraphs 0112-0113, 0125; “if the difference in height is greater than the filter height threshold 341, but less than the auxiliary threshold 341a, rather than discarding the point from the point cloud, the ground modeling system 100 replaces the point from the point cloud 310”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Levinson with removing outliers from a point cloud and replacing removed points having a height of Morales with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when capturing information of a ground surface, it is important to filter out unnecessary information. Objects on the ground surface, such as vehicles, people, or buildings need to be removed in order to accurately represent the terrain. These objects that are above a certain height threshold are removed or replaced in the ground surface information. One would have been motivated to combine Levinson with Morales as this achieves only keeping pertinent information in the ground surface model. As stated in Morales, “Common modeling systems utilizing ground filters, however, frequently over-filter or under-filter pertinent digital information. For example, common systems may over-filter by removing wanted objects (e.g., points reflecting the ground) rather than unwanted objects (e.g., a vehicle). Similarly, common systems may under-filter by failing to remove unwanted objects (e.g., leaving a building in the model)” (Paragraphs 0004-0006).
Regarding claim 4, Levinson discloses said forming comprises: segmenting the point cloud data (Paragraphs 0023-0024).
Levinson does not specifically state removing points having a height.
However, Morales teaches removing points having a height (Paragraphs 0124-0125; “if the difference in height is greater than the filter height threshold 341, the ground modeling system 100 removes the point from the point cloud 310”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Levinson with removing points having a height of Morales with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when capturing information of a ground surface, it is important to filter out unnecessary information. Objects on the ground surface, such as vehicles, people, or buildings need to be removed in order to accurately represent the terrain. These objects that are above a certain height threshold are removed or replaced in the ground surface information. One would have been motivated to combine Levinson with Morales as this achieves only keeping pertinent information in the ground surface model. As stated in Morales, “Common modeling systems utilizing ground filters, however, frequently over-filter or under-filter pertinent digital information. For example, common systems may over-filter by removing wanted objects (e.g., points reflecting the ground) rather than unwanted objects (e.g., a vehicle). Similarly, common systems may under-filter by failing to remove unwanted objects (e.g., leaving a building in the model)” (Paragraphs 0004-0006).
Regarding claim 13, Levinson discloses comprising a fourth processor configured (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 3. The system taught/disclosed in claim 13 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, Levinson discloses said third processor is configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 4. The system taught/disclosed in claim 14 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson, Fathi, and Nakamura, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Shuji (JP 2018181047 A).
Regarding claim 5, Levinson discloses merging the processable parts comprises (Paragraphs 0027-0028);
growing regions from the reduced-size processable parts and defining grown regions (Paragraphs 0027-0028; Growing regions is mapped to decimation);
determining an initial drivable surface from the grown regions (Paragraphs 0033, 0080, 0140-0141; “providing information about an environment, such as, but not limited to, topologies (such as intersections), streets, mountain ranges, roads, terrain, and the environment in general. In one example, a map can include a three-dimensional mesh generated using the decimation techniques discussed herein”);
segmenting and meshing the initial drivable surface and defining a segmented and meshed surface (Paragraph 0080; “providing information about an environment, such as, but not limited to, topologies (such as intersections), streets, mountain ranges, roads, terrain, and the environment in general. In one example, a map can include a three-dimensional mesh generated using the decimation techniques discussed herein. In some instances, the map can be stored in a tiled format, such that individual tiles of the map represent a discrete portion of an environment”);
locating a polygon within the segmented and meshed surface (Paragraphs 0070, 0095; “the first decimated mesh 512 can include a first plurality of polygons, the second decimated mesh 514 can include a second plurality of polygons, and the third mesh 516 can include a third plurality of polygons”);
setting a drivable surface based on the polygon (Paragraphs 0070, 0080).
Levinson does not specifically state reducing a size of the processable parts comprising analyzing outliers, voxels and normals, and defining reduced-size processable parts.
However, Shuji teaches reducing a size of the processable parts comprising analyzing outliers, voxels and normals, and defining reduced-size processable parts (Pages 15 Paragraph 5 – Page 16 Paragraph 3; “the same three-dimensional point using the voxel grid filter described above. Adjustment processing such as removal of three-dimensional points that are outliers and removal of three-dimensional points that are not consistent… the three-dimensional point group generation unit 13 estimates normal vectors of each of the three-dimensional points in the created three-dimensional point group, writes the three-dimensional point group in the three-dimensional point group storage unit 18, and stores it”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Levinson with reducing a size of the processable parts comprising analyzing outliers, voxels, and normal of Shuji with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using a voxel filter, outliers can be removed. Normal vectors can also be created to assist in generating the three dimensional shape model. One would have been motivated to combine Levinson with Shuji as this achieves efficient generation of a three-dimensional shape model of the surface. As stated in Shuji, “according to the three-dimensional shape model generating device of the present embodiment, the time required to generate a three-dimensional shape model is reduced and the three-dimensional shape of the object is compared to the conventional example. It is possible to generate a highly accurate three-dimensional shape model close to” (Page 20 Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 6, Levinson discloses locating a substantially discontinuous surface feature (SDSF) comprising (Paragraphs 0017, 0025-0026, 0042, 0077; “road, curb, sidewalk, grass, tree, tree trunk/branch, foliage (e.g., leaves), building, wall, fire hydrant, mailbox, pole, post, pedestrian, bicyclist, animal (e.g., dog), and the like”);
sorting the point cloud data of the drivable surface according to a SDSF filter comprising categories of points (Paragraphs 0015-0017, 0023-0026; “classification information such as semantic information can be used to identify polygons representing different regions or objects of the environment”);
locating an SDSF point based on whether the categories of points, in combination, meet a criterion (Paragraphs 0025, 0096; Criterion is mapped to classical or machine learning algorithms).
Regarding claim 15, Levinson discloses said second processor is configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 5. The system taught/disclosed in claim 15 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson, Fathi, Nakamura, and Shuji as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Silver (US 9395192 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Levinson discloses creating an SDSF trajectory (vehicle traveling through an environment with a curb).
Levinson does not specifically state creating an SDSF trajectory based on whether a plurality of the SDSF points, in combination, meet a second criterion.
However, Silver teaches creating an SDSF trajectory based on whether a plurality of the SDSF points, in combination, meet a second criterion (Col. 14 Line 6 – Col. 15 Line 17, Col. 19 Line 58 – Col. 20 Line 2; Second criterion is mapped to curvature of a road curb).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Levinson with creating an SDSF trajectory based on whether the SDSF points meet a second criterion of Silver with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a vehicle may need to alter or create a new trajectory if it detects a curve in the road ahead. The vehicle will have to turn if it wants to stay within the boundaries of the road. One would have been motivated to combine Levinson with Silver as this achieves successful navigation of the vehicle. As stated in Silver, “the computing system may alter the path of travel of the vehicle based on the detection and estimation of boundaries ahead of the vehicle's navigation. For example, the computing device may determine that a road curb may display a curvature and require the vehicle to execute a turn down the road from the current position of the vehicle. Similarly, the vehicle may use the estimations of boundaries to assist in staying within a lane on the road” (Col. 19 Line 58 – Col. 20 Line 2).
Claims 8 and 10 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson, Fathi, Nakamura, Shuji, and Silver, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gupta (US 9077958 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Levinson discloses adding the SDSF trajectory to the drivable surface (Paragraphs 0037, 0077-0078; “the planning component 624 can determine a path for the vehicle 602 to follow to traverse through an environment. For example, the planning component 624 can determine various routes and trajectories and various levels of detail”);
removing an interior edge from the drivable surface according to a third criterion (Paragraphs 0112-0114, Fig. 3 and 5 (See road polygons); Third criterion is mapped to whether semantic information of polygons is the same).
Levinson does not specifically state said creating comprises: smoothing the exterior edge and defining a smoothed exterior edge; forming a driving margin based on the smoothed exterior edge.
However, Gupta teaches said creating comprises: smoothing the exterior edge and defining a smoothed exterior edge (Col. 7 Line 57 – Col. 8 Line 3, Col. 13 Line 19 – Col. 13 Line 35, Claim 17; “Any suitable smoothing function may be utilized by the smoother module 320, such as a Butterworth filter, Laplacian smoothing, or local regression”);
forming a driving margin based on the smoothed exterior edge (Col. 2 Line 42 – Col. 2 Line 53, Col. 7 Line 57 – Col. 8 Line 3, Col. 11 Line 4 – Col. 11 Line 44, Col. 13 Line 19 – Col. 13 Line 35, Claim 17, Fig. 3 (See smoother 320 and road boundary model 240); “a road boundary module configured to create a road boundary model describing the edges of the road on which the vehicle is located based on the smoothed road texture model and the refined vehicle location; a road departure module configured to create a road departure model based on the road boundary model and vehicle odometry information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Levinson with smoothing the exterior edge and forming a driving margin based on the smoothed exterior edge of Gupta with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that classification of road edges can be smoothed based classification of nearby pixels, so noise and outliers are reduced. Smoothed road edges, representing a more accurate identification of edges, can have driving margins in order to improve the safety of the road departure warning system. One would have been motivated to combine Levinson with Gupta as this improves surface identification and safety. As stated in Gupta, “The prevention of vehicle accidents as a result of avoidable road departures is described… A road departure model is created based on the road boundary model and vehicle odometry information. A warning is issued to the operator of the vehicle based on the road departure model. For example, if the road departure model indicates a likelihood or high probability of a road departure, an audio or visual warning may be presented to the vehicle operator” (Col. 1 Line 58 – Col. 2 Line 6).
Regarding claim 10, Levinson discloses outward edges.
Levinson does not specifically state forming a driving margin comprises trimming the outward edges inwardly.
However, Gupta teaches forming a driving margin comprises trimming the outward edges inwardly (Col. 2 Line 42 – Col. 2 Line 53, Col. 11 Line 4 – Col. 11 Line 44, Col. 13 Line 55 – Col. 13 Line 67; “The width of the road may be identified based on the identified road edges, and may be optionally reduced by a safety margin”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Levinson with forming a driving margin by trimming outward edges inward of Gupta with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that by trimming the road edges inward, a safety margin is applied. This improves the safety of the road departure warning system. One would have been motivated to combine Levinson with Gupta as this improves vehicle safety. As stated in Gupta, “The prevention of vehicle accidents as a result of avoidable road departures is described… A road departure model is created based on the road boundary model and vehicle odometry information. A warning is issued to the operator of the vehicle based on the road departure model. For example, if the road departure model indicates a likelihood or high probability of a road departure, an audio or visual warning may be presented to the vehicle operator” (Col. 1 Line 58 – Col. 2 Line 6).
Claim 9 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson, Fathi, Nakamura, Shuji, Silver, and Gupta as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Afrouzi (US 11340079 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Levinson discloses exterior edges.
Levinson does not specifically state said smoothing comprises trimming the exterior edges outward forming outward edges.
However, Afrouzi teaches said smoothing comprises trimming the exterior edges outward forming outward edges (Col. 37 Line 16 – Col. 37 Line 64; “the boundary node may be multiplied by the counted number in order to smoothen boundaries. In some embodiments, the processor of the robot may determine the numerical value of each node in ∂A of zone A by combining scores for growth and decay of the zone, distance of the node from the center of the zone, order of zone coverage and surface smoother”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Levinson with smoothing comprising trimming the exterior edges outward of Afrouzi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a vehicle can move through and map the surrounding environment. Trimming the exterior edges outward allows the vehicle to continue exploring unmapped areas of the environment. One would have been motivated to combine Levinson with Afrouzi as this increases the mapping area of a vehicle. As stated in Afrouzi, “Areas of zones 1100, 1101, and 1102 bounded by dashed lines in FIG. 13B contain boundary nodes with high numerical value therefore the processor will continue to expand those areas with more iterations while areas with boundary nodes with low numerical value will contract. In embodiments, additional functions may be used by the processor to improve performance of zone optimization such as discover, delete and aggressive growth functions described earlier” (Col. 37 Line 65 – Col. 38 Line 16).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson, Fathi, and Nakamura, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Silver (US 9395192 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Levinson discloses the third processor is configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 7. The system taught/disclosed in claim 17 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson, Fathi, Nakamura, and Shuji, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Gupta (US 9077958 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Levinson discloses a fourth processor configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 8. The system taught/disclosed in claim 18 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson, Fathi, Nakamura, Shuji, and Gupta as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Afrouzi (US 11340079 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Levinson discloses a fifth processor configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 9. The system taught/disclosed in claim 19 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Levinson discloses a sixth processor configured for (Paragraphs 0073-0075).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 10. The system taught/disclosed in claim 20 can be clearly performed with the method of claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669