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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 8/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
2. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
3. Claims 11-19 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 12-19, have been included based on its dependency.
4. Claim 11 recites the limitation "a computing system" in Lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, it is unclear if the computing systems in Lines 3 and 4 are the same. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the computing systems are interpreted as the same.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milstein (US 20210003415 A1) in view of Strauss (US 20230003531 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Milstein teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by a computing system, a set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories for a given geographic area that is relevant to a map that is being built by the computing system (Milstein: [0053]);
Translating the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories from a source-agnostic coordinate frame to a local coordinate frame of the map to generate a translated set of vehicle trajectories (Milstein: [0051], [0101], and [0111]);
And generating lane geometry information for the map based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories (Milstein: [0094] and [0095]).
Milstein does not explicitly teach aligning the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map. However, Milstein teaches in [0051] and [0098] to transform to and from a local and global aligned projection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map as similarly shown in Milstein's use of transforming between local and global projections to provide the benefit of controlling the autonomous vehicle in the local coordinate space. Milstein teaches that the transformed projections are aligned to represent the truth of the real world.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Strauss teaches aligning the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map (Strauss: [0017] and [0024]).
Milstein and Strauss 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 Milstein to incorporate the teachings of Strauss to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map because it provides the benefit of reduced discrepancies in the coordinate systems of maps and increase the accuracy of planning maps.
10. Regarding Claim 2, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Milstein teaches the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories are represented in an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinate frame (Milstein: [0057]),
And wherein translating the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories comprises translating the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories from the ECEF coordinate frame to the local coordinate frame of the map (Milstein: [0051]).
11. Regarding Claim 3, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Milstein teaches generating a geospatial query that identifies the given geographic area (Milstein: [0051] and [0053]);
Submitting the geospatial query to a source-agnostic trajectory database (Milstein: [0060]);
And receiving a response to the geospatial query from the source-agnostic trajectory database (Milstein: [0063]).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Milstein teaches the geospatial query comprises a request for a set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories that have at least a given degree of accuracy (Milstein: [0053] and [0060] Note that the source-agnostic trajectories have at least some accuracies greater than zero.).
13. Regarding Claim 5, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Milstein teaches partitioning the translated set of vehicle trajectories into a first subset and a second subset (Milstein: [0053]),
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 (Milstein: [0055] and [0098]);
And generating the lane geometry information based on the first subset; and validating the lane geometry based on the second subset (Milstein: [0095] and [0110]).
14. Regarding Claim 6, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Milstein teaches obtaining, by the computing system, (i) a first set of sensor data captured by a first sensor system of a first vehicle, and (ii) a second set of sensor data captured by a second sensor system of a second vehicle (Milstein: [0069]);
Based on the first set of sensor data captured by the first sensor system, deriving a first trajectory for the first vehicle that is defined in terms of the source-agnostic coordinate frame rather than a source-specific coordinate frame associated with the first sensor system; based on the second set of sensor data captured by the second sensor system, deriving a second trajectory for the second vehicle that is defined in terms of the source-agnostic coordinate frame rather than a source-specific coordinate frame associated with the second sensor system (Milstein: [0054] and [0097]);
And storing the first trajectory for the first vehicle and the second trajectory for the second vehicle in a database of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories; and wherein obtaining the source-agnostic vehicle trajectories for the given geographic area comprises obtaining the source-agnostic trajectories from the database of source- agnostic vehicle trajectories (Milstein: [0060]).
15. Regarding Claim 7, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Milstein teaches compensating for an error introduced during the translation of the source-agnostic set of vehicle trajectories from the source-agnostic coordinate frame to the local coordinate frame of the map (Milstein: [0053] and [0055]).
16. Regarding Claim 8, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Strauss 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 (Strauss: [0017] and [0025]).
17. Regarding Claim 9, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Strauss 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 (Strauss: [0020] and [0025]).
18. Regarding Claim 10, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Strauss teaches identifying connections between a plurality of lanes for road segments that intersect at the roadway junction (Strauss: [0025] and [0026]);
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 (Strauss: [0024] and [0028]).
19. Regarding Claim 11, Milstein 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 (Milstein: [0083]):
Obtain, by a computing system, a set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories for a given geographic area that is relevant to a map that is being built by the computing system (Milstein: [0053]);
Translate the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories from a source-agnostic coordinate frame to a local coordinate frame of the map to generate a translated set of vehicle trajectories (Milstein: [0051], [0101], and [0111]);
And generate lane geometry information for the map based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories (Milstein: [0094] and [0095]).
Milstein does not explicitly teach to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map. However, Milstein teaches in [0051] and [0098] to transform to and from a local and global aligned projection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map as similarly shown in Milstein's use of transforming between local and global projections to provide the benefit of controlling the autonomous vehicle in the local coordinate space. Milstein teaches that the transformed projections are aligned to represent the truth of the real world.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Strauss teaches to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map (Strauss: [0017] and [0024]).
Milstein and Strauss 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 Milstein to incorporate the teachings of Strauss to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map because it provides the benefit of reduced discrepancies in the coordinate systems of maps and increase the accuracy of planning maps.
20. Regarding Claim 12, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Milstein teaches the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories are represented in an Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinate frame (Milstein: [0057]),
And wherein translating the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories comprises translating the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories from the ECEF coordinate frame to the local coordinate frame of the map (Milstein: [0051]).
21. Regarding Claim 13, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Milstein teaches generating a geospatial query that identifies the given geographic area (Milstein: [0051] and [0053]);
Submitting the geospatial query to a source-agnostic trajectory database (Milstein: [0060]);
And receiving a response to the geospatial query from the source-agnostic trajectory database (Milstein: [0063]).
22. Regarding Claim 14, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Milstein teaches a request for a set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories that have at least a given degree of accuracy (Milstein: [0053] and [0060] Note that the source-agnostic trajectories have at least some accuracies greater than zero.).
23. Regarding Claim 15, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Milstein teaches partitioning the translated set of vehicle trajectories into a first subset and a second subset (Milstein: [0053]),
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 (Milstein: [0055] and [0098]);
And generating the lane geometry information based on the first subset; and validating the lane geometry based on the second subset (Milstein: [0095] and [0110]).
24. Regarding Claim 16, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Milstein teaches obtaining, by the computing system, (i) a first set of sensor data captured by a first sensor system of a first vehicle, and (ii) a second set of sensor data captured by a second sensor system of a second vehicle (Milstein: [0069]);
Based on the first set of sensor data captured by the first sensor system, deriving a first trajectory for the first vehicle that is defined in terms of the source-agnostic coordinate frame rather than a source-specific coordinate frame associated with the first sensor system; based on the second set of sensor data captured by the second sensor system, deriving a second trajectory for the second vehicle that is defined in terms of the source-agnostic coordinate frame rather than a source-specific coordinate frame associated with the second sensor system (Milstein: [0054] and [0097]);
And storing the first trajectory for the first vehicle and the second trajectory for the second vehicle in a database of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories; and wherein obtaining the source-agnostic vehicle trajectories for the given geographic area comprises obtaining the source-agnostic trajectories from the database of source- agnostic vehicle trajectories (Milstein: [0060]).
25. Regarding Claim 17, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Strauss 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 (Strauss: [0017] and [0025]).
26. Regarding Claim 18, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Strauss 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 (Strauss: [0020] and [0025]).
27. Regarding Claim 19, Milstein and Strauss remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Strauss teaches identifying connections between a plurality of lanes for road segments that intersect at the roadway junction (Strauss: [0025] and [0026]);
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 (Strauss: [0024] and [0028]).
28. Regarding Claim 20, Milstein 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 (Milstein: [0083]):
Obtain, by a computing system, a set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories for a given geographic area that is relevant to a map that is being built by the computing system (Milstein: [0053]);
Translate the set of source-agnostic vehicle trajectories from a source-agnostic coordinate frame to a local coordinate frame of the map to generate a translated set of vehicle trajectories (Milstein: [0051], [0101], and [0111]);
And generate lane geometry information for the map based on the translated set of vehicle trajectories (Milstein: [0094] and [0095]).
Milstein does not explicitly teach to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map. However, Milstein teaches in [0051] and [0098] to transform to and from a local and global aligned projection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map as similarly shown in Milstein's use of transforming between local and global projections to provide the benefit of controlling the autonomous vehicle in the local coordinate space. Milstein teaches that the transformed projections are aligned to represent the truth of the real world.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Strauss teaches to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map (Strauss: [0017] and [0024]).
Milstein and Strauss 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 Milstein to incorporate the teachings of Strauss to align the translated set of vehicle trajectories within the map because it provides the benefit of reduced discrepancies in the coordinate systems of maps and increase the accuracy of planning maps.
Conclusion
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weiser (US 20200257301 A1)
30. 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