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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3-7, 13-17 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.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation “a plurality of cells” and depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively, in which the same limitation is recited. It is unclear if these instances are the same or distinct. For purposes of examination the cells are interpreted as being distinct in content between the local map and vector map but with the cells of each distinct map sharing the same grid coordinate location.
Claims 4-7 and 14-17 depend from claims 3 and 13, respectively, but do not resolve the indefiniteness of their preceding claims and therefore are rejected on the same grounds.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, “loading a map…scanning a surrounding environment…recognizing a surrounding terrain… generating a first score map… generating a vector map…converting the vector map…generating a final score map”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations of: scanning a surrounding environment is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Converting the vector map to a second score map is considered determining and generating.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not
include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology,
apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a
particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a
particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites, in part, “surrounding terrain includes…”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites, in part, “vector map includes…generating a vector map…collecting performance information…calculating…”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Calculating is a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites, in part, “assigning a first score…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites, in part, “assigning the first score…inverse proportion”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites, in part, “assigning the second score based on…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, in part, “generating of the final score…based on…setting a first maximum value…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 11-12, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200200547A1 Miller et al ("Miller") in view of US20170057495A1 Walessa ("Walessa").
As per claims 1, 8, 11, Miller teaches the limitations of the methods and system:
A system of controlling driving for a mobility, the system comprising: a mobility; a surrounding environment scanner mounted on the mobility and configured to scan a surrounding environment of the mobility; one or more processors; and a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (Miller at least the abstract, [0023], [0035])
receive information on the scanned surrounding environment from the surrounding environment scanner, recognize a surrounding terrain of the mobility from information on the surrounding environment (Miller at least [0070]: “determines a navigability score for each point, which contributes to the navigable or non-navigable classification”)
generate a first score map corresponding to the recognized surrounding terrain (Miller at least FIG. 12D, FIG. 12E, [0070])
convert a generated map to a second score map, generate a final score map based on the first score map and the second score map (Miller at least FIG. 12D, FIG. 12E, [0070])
generate a driving route based on the final score map, and control the driving of the mobility based on the driving route, generate a driving instruction based on the driving route, and control the driving of the mobility based on the generated driving instruction. (Miller at least [0042-0052] )
Miller does not disclose:
load a local map including a plurality of cells,
generate a vector map corresponding to the recognized surrounding terrain,
Walessa teaches the aforementioned limitations:
Walessa at least the abstract, FIG. 4A, FIG. 2
Walessa at least [0037], FIG. 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Miller with the aforementioned limitations taught by Walessa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to create a local terrain map such that obstacle identification is possible in the case of non-planar driving surfaces (Walessa [0010]).
As per claims 2 and 12, Miller in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Miller additionally teaches:
the surrounding terrain includes: an obstacle includes an object physically existing between a bottom surface of the mobility and a top surface of the mobility; a general terrain includes terrain surfaces existing between the bottom surface of the mobility and a lower end of a wheel of the mobility; or a special terrain includes terrain features for which the mobility is capable of moving based on one of or both of an entry direction and a speed of the mobility. (Miller at least [0048]: “occupancy grid includes information at a high resolution near the navigable areas, for example, at curbs and bumps, and relatively low resolution in less significant areas, for example, trees and walls beyond a curb. ”)
As per claims 9 and 18, Miller in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Miller additionally teaches:
generate at least one route from a current location of the mobility to a destination, remove an inappropriate route including a zone where an obstacle is located or a movement of the mobility is prohibited from the at least one route, and select one, as the driving route, of the at least one route having a minimum score among the at least one route from which the inappropriate route is removed. (Miller at least [0094], [0082]) *Examiner’s note: here Miller teaches the lowest score for a route that is paved and that higher scores indicate lower levels of navigability.
As per claim 19, Miller in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Miller additionally teaches:
for the controlling of the driving of the mobility based on the driving route, the instructions further enable the one or more processors to: generate a driving instruction based on the driving route, and control the driving of the mobility based on the generated driving instruction. (Miller at least [0042])
Claim(s) 3-7, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Walessa in view of US20220374024A1 Whitman et al ("Whitman").
As per claims 3 and 13, Miller in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Miller does not disclose:
wherein the vector map includes a plurality of cells and a plurality of vectors each heading from each of the plurality of cells to a surrounding cell, each cell storing a terrain type and each vector storing maximum and minimum speeds of the mobility when the mobility moves in a direction of the vector, and wherein, for the generating of the vector map based on the surrounding terrain, the instructions further enable the one or more processors to: collect performance information of the mobility, calculate the vector map of the obstacle based on an obstacle type, calculate the vector map of the special terrain based on a special terrain type and the performance information of the mobility, and calculate the vector map of the general terrain based on a general terrain type and the performance information of the mobility.
Whitman teaches the aforementioned limitation (Whitman at least FIG. 5B, FIG. 5C, [0097], [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Miller with the aforementioned limitations taught by Whitman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to create a map of navigable terrain based on terrain height. *Examiner’s note: Whitman is silent on particular types of mobility performance information specific to wheeled vehicles such as wheelbase, tire size/type, ground clearance, approach angle, sway bar disconnect, 4wd/differential lock, 2nd gear power start, omni directional wheels, etc.
As per claims 4 and 14, Miller in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Miller does not disclose:
assign a first score based on the obstacle, assign a second score based on maximum speed, and assign a third score based on the special terrain.
Whitman teaches the aforementioned limitation (Whitman at least FIG. 5A, FIG. 5B, FIG. 5C, [0097], [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Miller with the aforementioned limitations taught by Whitman with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 3.
As per claims 5 and 15, Miller in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Miller does not disclose:
assign the first score based on the obstacle by assigning the first score indicating movement prohibition to the cell including the obstacle and assigning the first score to the surrounding cell in inverse proportion to a distance to the obstacle.
Whitman teaches the aforementioned limitation (Whitman at least [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Miller with the aforementioned limitations taught by Whitman with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 3.
As per claims 6 and 16, Miller in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Miller does not disclose:
assign the second score based on the maximum speed by assigning the second score based on a rate of the maximum speed being limited.
Whitman teaches the aforementioned limitation (Whitman at least [0099-0101]). *Examiner’s note: here Whitman teaches a speed dependent height of the leg based on the leg of the robot swinging at a certain speed. Thus a certain height obstacle has a speed limit for the robot to traverse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Miller with the aforementioned limitations taught by Whitman with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 3.
As per claims 7 and 17, Miller in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Miller additionally teaches:
for the generating of the final score map based on the first score map and the second score map, the instructions further enable the one or more processors to: set a first maximum value among at least one score assigned to any cell as a final score of the corresponding cell, and set a second maximum value among at least one score assigned to any vector as a final score of the corresponding vector. (Miller at least [0087])
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Walessa in view of US20210188296A1 Ma et al ("Ma").
As per claims 10 and 20, Miller in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Miller does not disclose:
the driving instruction includes a speed instruction and a torque instruction.
Ma teaches the aforementioned limitation (Ma at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Miller with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ma with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve system responsiveness (Ma [0062]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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 Mehdizadeh can be reached at (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 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669