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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-22 are currently pending.
2. Claims 21-22 are new.
3. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-13, 16, and 20 are currently amended.
4. The 112(b) rejection to Claim 11 has been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zlot (US 20190302801 A1) in view of Weiser (US 20200257301 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Zlot teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by a computing system from a source-agnostic trajectory database, a set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories representing past vehicle movement within a given geographic area that is relevant to a map that is being built by the computing system (Zlot: [0034] and [0038]),
Wherein each respective source-agnostic vehicle trajectory in the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories is (i) generated from respective sensor data for the given geographical area captured by a respective type of sensor system having a respective source-specific coordinate frame and (ii) represented according to a common source-agnostic coordinate frame that differs from the respective source- specific coordinate frame (Zlot: [0034] and [0072]),
And translating the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories from the common source- agnostic coordinate frame to a local coordinate frame of the map to generate a translated set of vehicle trajectories… (Zlot: [0038] and [0039]).
Zlot fails to explicitly teach wherein the local coordinate frame of the map differs from the common source-agnostic coordinate frame as well as the respective source-specific coordinate frames; aligning the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map; and generating lane geometry information for the map based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Weiser teaches the local coordinate frame of the map differs from the common source-agnostic coordinate frame as well as the respective source-specific coordinate frames; aligning the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map (Weiser: [0318], [0319], and [0360]);
And generating lane geometry information for the map based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories (Weiser: [0336] and [0360]).
Zlot and Weiser are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zlot to incorporate the teachings of Weiser to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within in the map and to generate lane geometry information because it provides the benefit of an efficient method to align local maps with body reference frames to have a precise estimation of vehicle location. The relevant pieces of local maps are used for path planning because global coordinates may not be accurate as explicitly explained in [0319] and [0327] of Weiser.
10. Regarding Claim 3, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Zlot teaches generating a geospatial query that identifies the given geographic area (Zlot: [0017] and [0029]);
Submitting the geospatial query to the source-agnostic trajectory database; and receiving a response to the geospatial query from the source-agnostic trajectory database (Zlot: [0038] and [0039]).
11. Regarding Claim 4, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Zlot teaches the geospatial query comprises a request for a set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories that have at least a given degree of accuracy (Zlot: [0035]).
12. Regarding Claim 5, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Weiser teaches generating the lane geometry information based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories comprises: partitioning the translated set of vehicle trajectories into a first subset and a second subset (Weiser: [0300] and [0360]),
Wherein the translated set of vehicle trajectories included in the first subset have a greater degree of accuracy than the translated set of vehicle trajectories included in the second subset (Weiser: [0157] and [0436]);
Generating the lane geometry information based on the first subset; and validating the lane geometry based on the second subset (Weiser: [0157] and [0436]).
13. Regarding Claim 6, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Zlot teaches obtaining, by the computing system, (i) a first set of sensor data captured by a first type of sensor system of a first vehicle, and (ii) a second set of sensor data captured by a second type of sensor system of a second vehicle (Zlot: [0031] and [0035]);
Based on the first set of sensor data captured by the first type of sensor system, deriving a first trajectory for the first vehicle that is defined in terms of the common source-agnostic coordinate frame rather than the respective source-specific coordinate frame associated with the first type of sensor system; based on the second set of sensor data captured by the second type of sensor system, deriving a second trajectory for the second vehicle that is defined in terms of the common source- agnostic coordinate frame rather than the respective source-specific coordinate frame associated with the second type of sensor system (Zlot: [0034]);
Storing the first trajectory for the first vehicle and the second trajectory for the second vehicle in the source-agnostic trajectory database (Zlot: [0038]);
And wherein obtaining, from the source-agnostic trajectory database, the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories for the given geographic area comprises obtaining, from the source-agnostic trajectory database, the first trajectory for the first vehicle and the second trajectory for the second vehicle (Zlot: [0038] and [0039]).
14. Regarding Claim 7, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Weiser teaches compensating for an error introduced during the translation of the set of source- agnostic set of vehicle trajectories from the common source-agnostic coordinate frame to the local coordinate frame of the map (Weiser: [0322] and [0436]).
15. Regarding Claim 8, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Weiser teaches using semantic information encoded in the map to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map such that the translated set of vehicle trajectories are positioned within the map at a roadway junction of the map (Weiser: [0297]).
16. Regarding Claim 9, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Weiser teaches determining a geospatial location of a lane boundary within the roadway junction of the map, wherein the lane boundary is not apparent from any pavement markings within the roadway junction (Weiser: [0297]).
17. Regarding Claim 10, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Weiser teaches identifying connections between a plurality of lanes for road segments that intersect at the roadway junction (Weiser: [0297]);
And defining lane geometry information of one or more junction lanes based on previously created lane geometry information for the plurality of lanes for the road segments (Weiser: [0157] and [0297]).
18. Regarding Claim 11, Zlot teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is provisioned with program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing system to (Zlot: [0025]):
Obtain, by a computing system from a source-agnostic trajectory database, a set of source- agnostic vehicle trajectories representing past vehicle movement within a given geographic area that is relevant to a map that is being built by the computing system (Zlot: [0034] and [0038]),
Wherein each respective source-agnostic vehicle trajectory in the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories is (i) generated from respective sensor data for the given geographical area captured by a respective type of sensor system having a respective source-specific coordinate frame and (ii) represented according to a common source-agnostic coordinate frame that differs from the respective source-specific coordinate frame (Zlot: [0034] and [0072]),
Translate the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories from the common source- agnostic coordinate frame to a local coordinate frame of the map to generate a translated set of vehicle trajectories… (Zlot: [0038] and [0039]).
Zlot fails to explicitly teach wherein the local coordinate frame of the map differs from the common source-agnostic coordinate frame as well as the respective source-specific coordinate frames; align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map; and generate lane geometry information for the map based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Weiser teaches the local coordinate frame of the map differs from the common source-agnostic coordinate frame as well as the respective source-specific coordinate frames; align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map (Weiser: [0318], [0319], and [0360]);
And generate lane geometry information for the map based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories (Weiser: [0336] and [0360]).
Zlot and Weiser are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zlot to incorporate the teachings of Weiser to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within in the map and to generate lane geometry information because it provides the benefit of an efficient method to align local maps with body reference frames to have a precise estimation of vehicle location. The relevant pieces of local maps are used for path planning because global coordinates may not be accurate as explicitly explained in [0319] and [0327] of Weiser.
19. Regarding Claim 13, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Zlot teaches generating a geospatial query that identifies the given geographic area (Zlot: [0017] and [0029]);
Submitting the geospatial query to the source-agnostic trajectory database; and receiving a response to the geospatial query from the source-agnostic trajectory database (Zlot: [0038] and [0039]).
20. Regarding Claim 14, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Zlot teaches the geospatial query comprises a request for a set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories that have at least a given degree of accuracy (Zlot: [0035]).
21. Regarding Claim 15, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Weiser teaches partitioning the translated set of vehicle trajectories into a first subset and a second subset (Weiser: [0300] and [0360]),
Wherein the translated set of vehicle trajectories included in the first subset have a greater degree of accuracy than the translated set of vehicle trajectories included in the second subset (Weiser: [0157] and [0436]);
And generating the lane geometry information based on the first subset; and validating the lane geometry based on the second subset (Weiser: [0157] and [0436]).
22. Regarding Claim 17, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Weiser teaches using semantic information encoded in the map to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map such that the translated set of vehicle trajectories are positioned within the map at a roadway junction of the map (Weiser: [0322] and [0436]).
23. Regarding Claim 18, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Weiser teaches determining a geospatial location of a lane boundary within the roadway junction of the map, wherein the lane boundary is not apparent from any pavement markings within the roadway junction (Weiser: [0297]).
24. Regarding Claim 19, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Weiser teaches identifying connections between a plurality of lanes for road segments that intersect at the roadway junction (Weiser: [0297]);
And defining lane geometry information of one or more junction lanes based on previously created lane geometry information for the plurality of lanes for the road segments (Weiser: [0157] and [0297]).
25. Regarding Claim 20, Zlot teaches a computing system comprising: at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to (Zlot: [0025]):
Obtain, by a computing system from a source-agnostic trajectory database, a set of source- agnostic vehicle trajectories representing past vehicle movement within a given geographic area that is relevant to a map that is being built by the computing system (Zlot: [0034] and [0038]),
Wherein each respective source-agnostic vehicle trajectory in the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories is (i) generated from respective sensor data for the given geographical area captured by a respective type of sensor system having a respective source-specific coordinate frame and (ii) represented according to a common source-agnostic coordinate frame that differs from the respective source-specific coordinate frame (Zlot: [0034] and [0072]);
Translate the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories from the common source- agnostic coordinate frame to a local coordinate frame of the map to generate a translated set of vehicle trajectories… (Zlot: [0038] and [0039]).
Zlot fails to explicitly teach wherein the local coordinate frame of the map differs from the common source-agnostic coordinate frame as well as the respective source-specific coordinate frames; aligning the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map; and generating lane geometry information for the map based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Weiser teaches the local coordinate frame of the map differs from the common source-agnostic coordinate frame as well as the respective source-specific coordinate frames; align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map (Weiser: [0318], [0319], and [0360]);
And generate lane geometry information for the map based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories (Weiser: [0336] and [0360]).
Zlot and Weiser are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zlot to incorporate the teachings of Weiser to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within in the map and to generate lane geometry information because it provides the benefit of an efficient method to align local maps with body reference frames to have a precise estimation of vehicle location. The relevant pieces of local maps are used for path planning because global coordinates may not be accurate as explicitly explained in [0319] and [0327] of Weiser.
26. Regarding Claim 21, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Weiser teaches accessing stored information that defines, for each respective vehicle trajectory in the translated set of vehicle trajectories, a respective error introduced during the translation of the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories from the common source-agnostic coordinate frame to the local coordinate frame of the map; wherein compensating for the error introduced during the translation of the set of source- agnostic vehicle trajectories from the common source-agnostic coordinate frame to the local coordinate frame of the map comprises compensating for the respective errors based on the accessed stored information (Weiser: [0322] and [0436]).
27. Regarding Claim 22, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Weiser teaches aligning the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map after compensating for the respective errors based on the accessed stored information (Weiser: [0322], [0324], and [0436]).
28. Claims 2, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zlot (US 20190302801 A1), in view of Weiser (US 20200257301 A1), and in further view of Milstein (US 20210003415 A1).
29. Regarding Claim 2, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Zlot and Weiser fail to explicitly teach the common source-agnostic coordinate frame comprises an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinate frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Milstein teaches the common source-agnostic coordinate frame comprises an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinate frame (Milstein: [0057]).
Zlot, Weiser, and Milstein are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zlot and Weiser to incorporate the teachings of Milstein for the common source-agnostic coordinate frame to comprise an ECEF coordinate frame because it provides the benefit of referring to a point in the world to give a single frame of reference as explicitly explained in [0057] of Milstein.
30. Regarding Claim 12, Zlot and Weiser remain as applied above in Claim 11.
Zlot and Weiser fail to explicitly teach the common source-agnostic coordinate frame comprises an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinate frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Milstein teaches the common source-agnostic coordinate frame comprises an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinate frame (Milstein: [0057]).
Zlot, Weiser, and Milstein are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of navigation maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zlot and Weiser to incorporate the teachings of Milstein for the common source-agnostic coordinate frame to comprise an ECEF coordinate frame because it provides the benefit of referring to a point in the world to give a single frame of reference as explicitly explained in [0057] of Milstein.
31. Regarding Claim 16, Zlot, Weiser, and Milstein remain as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Zlot teaches obtain, by the computing system, (i) a first set of sensor data captured by a first type of sensor system of a first vehicle, and (ii) a second set of sensor data captured by a second type of sensor system of a second vehicle (Zlot: [0031] and [0035]);
Based on the first set of sensor data captured by the first type of sensor system, derive deriving a first trajectory for the first vehicle that is defined in terms of the common source- agnostic coordinate frame rather than the respective source-specific coordinate frame associated with the first type of sensor system; based on the second set of sensor data captured by the second type of sensor system, derive deriving a second trajectory for the second vehicle that is defined in terms of the common source- agnostic coordinate frame rather than the respective source-specific coordinate frame associated with the second type of sensor system (Zlot: [0034]);
And store storing the first trajectory for the first vehicle and the second trajectory for the second vehicle in the source-agnostic trajectory database (Zlot: [0038]);
Wherein obtaining, from the source-agnostic trajectory database, the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories for the given geographic area comprises obtaining, from the source-agnostic trajectory database, the first trajectory for the first vehicle and the second trajectory for the second vehicle (Zlot: [0038] and [0039]).
Response to Arguments
32. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Zlot (US 20190302801 A1) and Weiser (US 20200257301 A1) have been applied to teach the amended subject matter of obtaining source-agnostic trajectories generated from sensor data and represented according a common coordinate frame to align a set of translated vehicle trajectories. Zlot teaches to transform the trajectories taken by the sensors in multiple vehicles to generate a common coordinate frame. Weiser teaches using local maps from a global map.
33. Zlot (US 20190302801 A1), in view of Weiser (US 20200257301 A1), and in further view of Milstein (US 20210003415 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
34. Claims 1-22 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
35. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
36. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
