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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 19 September 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “an second set of map data”. The examiner recommends amending to recite “a second set of map data”. Claims 8 and 19 have a similar recitation and are objected to for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“robot configured to…” “update” and “determine” recited in claims 12 and 15, respectively.
“Map manager configured to…” “maintain” “determine” and “update” as recited in claims 15 and “update” as recited in claim 17
Structural support can be found in at least [0003], [0013-0017] and [0022].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7, 10, 12 and 15-18 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.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the processor configured to determine the correspondence comprises: the processor configured to identify occupied space in the map data of the mapped subarea that differs from the global map; or the processor configured to determine whether the mapped subarea is contained within the global map.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “occupied space”. The examiner notes that claim 7 depends from claim 1 and claim 1 does not recite identifying occupied spaces. Rather this appears to be defined in claim 4.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the processor configured to determine the correspondence comprises: the processor configured to identify occupied space in the map data of the mapped subarea that differs from the global map; or the processor configured to determine whether the mapped subarea is contained within the global map.”. The examiner notes that claim 7 depends from claim 1 and claim 1 does not recite determining whether the mapped subarea is contained within the global map. Rather, there is a recitation d determining the correspondence in claim 1.
The examiner believes it is possible that Applicant intends to recite “wherein the processor is further configured to identify occupied space in the map data of the mapped subarea that differs from the global map or determine whether the mapped subarea is contained within the global map.”. However, as written the claim is not clear.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the processor configured to determine the correspondence comprises: the processor configured to identify occupied space in the map data of the mapped subarea that differs from the global map; or the processor configured to determine whether the mapped subarea is contained within the global map.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the processor configured to identify occupied space in the map data of the mapped subarea that differs from the global map” and “the processor configured to determine whether the mapped subarea is contained within the global map” in the claim. The examiner notes that a processor configured to identify occupied space in the map data of the mapped subarea that differs from the global map has not yet been recited. Further, a processor configured to to determine whether the mapped subarea is contained within the global map determining whether the robot is able to localize itself on the global map has not been previously recited. The examiner notes that claim 7 depends from claim 1 which recites “a processor”. There is no indication that there are separate processors for each function.
Claim 8 recites “the environment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the processor configured to determine the correspondence comprises the processor configured to determine whether the robot is able to localize itself on the global map.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the processor configured to determine whether the robot is able to localize itself on the global map” in the claim. The examiner notes that a step or a processor capable of determining whether the robot is able to localize itself on the global map has not been previously recited. The examiner notes that claim 10 depends from claim 1 which recites “a processor”.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the robot is configured to update the global map in real-time when the map data of the mapped subarea is received from the robot”. It is not clear what is intended by this claim. It appears the claim requires the robot receives the mapped subarea from itself. Further, the examiner notes that the claim is a device claim and recites the term “when” which is a temporal limitation and does not further limit the claim.
Claim 15 recites “a map manger “ in line 5. Claim 15 previously recited “a map manager” in line 2. It is not clear if the map manger of claim line 5 is the same or different than that of line 2. Further, in claim 15, line 5, “the map manager” is recited and it is not clear if the map manager is referring back to the map manager recited in line 5 or line 2. Similarly, claim 17 recites “the map manager” and it is unclear which map manager the claim is referring back to.
Claims 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: (1) a processor configured to identify occupied space in the map data of the mapped subarea that differs from the global map as recited in claim 7; (2) a processor configured to determine whether the mapped subarea is contained within the global map”; and (3) a processor configured to determine whether the robot is able to localize itself on the global map.
Claims 16-18 depend from claim 15 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 15.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims could be considered signal per se.
Claim 19 recites a computer-readable medium that is not limited to non-transitory tangible media. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Off. 212 (2010). The computer readable medium recited in claim 19 encompasses a transitory, propagating signal, which is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The claim "covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories [and thus] falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101." Id. at 1354. Although the specification discusses that the program may be stored in a storage device wherein the storage device includes a non-transitory storage medium, or installing a storage medium which may be a non-transitory storage medium (see e.g. [014]), the specification it does not definitively state that the storage medium is non-transitory. Accordingly, because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (hard disk drive, flash device , RAM, tape, etc.), as well as subject matter that does not (signals distributed over network), the claim as a whole does not to a fall within a statutory category and thus fail the first criterion for eligibility.
The Examiner respectfully recommends amending the claim(s) to recite “non-transitory storage medium”.
Dependent claim(s) 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible, and accordingly are also rejected for the rationale provide above with respect to claim 19
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed toward a device and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 15 is directed toward a system and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 19 is not directed toward a statutory category, as noted above, however for purposes of expediting prosecution, the examiner has included the claim in the below analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 15 recites:
15. A system for map regeneration of an environment, the system comprising:
a map manager configured to maintain a global map of the environment; and
a robot configured to determine a correspondence between a mapped subarea of the environment and a global map of the environment and, based on the correspondence, transmit map data of the mapped subarea to a map manager, wherein the map manager is configured to:
determine a quality metric of the map data of the mapped subarea with respect to the global map; and
update the global map with the map data of the mapped subarea based on the quality metric.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “maintain a global map of the environment”, “determine a correspondence between a mapped subarea of the environment and a global map of the environment”, “determine a quality metric of the map data of the mapped subarea with respect to the global map” and “update the global map with the map data of the mapped subarea based on the quality metric” steps encompass a human using a paper and pen to maintain a map, the human viewing a mapped subarea and the global map of the environment and determining that there are objects of the mapped subarea that correspond to the global map, determining the level of correspondence, e.g. good, fair, poor and providing updates to the global map with a paper and pen when there is a good level of correspondence.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 15 recites:
15. A system for map regeneration of an environment, the system comprising:
a map manager configured to maintain a global map of the environment; and
a robot configured to determine a correspondence between a mapped subarea of the environment and a global map of the environment and, based on the correspondence, transmit map data of the mapped subarea to a map manager, wherein the map manager is configured to:
determine a quality metric of the map data of the mapped subarea with respect to the global map; and
update the global map with the map data of the mapped subarea based on the quality metric.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of “a map manager configured to” “a robot configured to” and “based on the correspondence, transmit map data of the mapped subarea to a map manager” and “ wherein the map manager is configured to” the examiner submits that these limitations merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Specifically, the courts have held that merely reciting the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitations of “a map manager configured to” “a robot configured to” and “wherein the map manager is configured to” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “maintain a global map”, “determining a correspondence” “determining a quality metric” and “updating the global map”. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer (see [0013] and [0015] of the instant application).
Further, the limitations of “based on the correspondence, transmit map data of the mapped subarea to a map manager” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering or data output) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a map manager configured to” “a robot configured to” and “wherein the map manager is configured to” are recited at a high level of generality and simply describes using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “maintain a global map”, “determining a correspondence” “determining a quality metric” and “updating the global map” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (see [0013] and [0015] of the instant application). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations of “based on the correspondence, transmit map data of the mapped subarea to a map manager” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 19 have similar recitations to claim 15 and the analysis above with respect to claim 15 also applies to claims 1 and 19.
Dependent claim(s) 2-13, 16-18 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are considered mental process steps (comparison of claims 2, 8, 16, and 20; updating based on criterion of claim 3 and 17; characterizing occupancy of claim 4 and 18; using characteristic of claim 5; stitching together of claim of claim 6; determining whether robot is able to localize of claim 11; updating of claim 12); “apply it” (processor of claim 2-14; sensors of claim 9; ) and additional steps that amount to necessary data output (e.g. second set of map data received of claims 2, 8, 16, and 20). These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-13, 16-18 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-13, 15-18 and 19-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is patent eligible as it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of controlling the robot to use the updated global map.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ondruska et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0407069, hereinafter “Ondruska”).
Regarding claim 1, Ondruska discloses a device comprising a processor configured to:
determine a correspondence between a global map of an environment and a mapped subarea of the environment, wherein the mapped subarea is received from a robot within the environment (see at least Ondruska Figure 4 and [0078-0091] for the validation of data and [0090] “In some embodiments, one or more regions of an existing global map may comprise data of a lower accuracy than a predetermined value, where the predetermined value can be set to signify an acceptable level of quality. In such cases, the one or more regions that have data of quality level lower than the acceptable level of quality may necessitate a capture of new, more accurate map segment data 301 (e.g., image data) which can be verified or validated 305 using the method described herein. The new map segment data 301 may replace the map data of an existing region of the global map (which may also be referred to as an area, segment, section, zone, or portion of the global map) or be used to augment the existing data for the relevant region of the map. In this situation, the quality threshold can be set at the quality of the corresponding map segment that currently exists in the global map. Thus, any new map reconstruction 304 is incorporated if better than the map segment that currently exists in the global map.” See also [0109] “ In example embodiments, the process of updating the global map 806 can include a step of pre-determining one or more requirements for the reconstruction of an area of the global map. In such embodiments, if the reconstruction of an area meets or satisfies these predetermined requirements it permits the global map to be updated with the reconstruction of one or more neighboring map segments meeting these requirements. In some embodiments, the reconstruction would need to be an improvement on the existing global map. This may be determined by the validation of the input data (as previously indicated) or various SfM techniques that generate more accurate map segment reconstructions based on the input image data obtained by one or more devices. In some embodiments, the predetermined requirements can be based on the data used to generate the global map, optionally in the form of one or more constraints…” See also [0127-0128]. The examiner notes that the vehicle can be considered a robot and further, Ondruska teaches in [0078] the process and system can be any type of mobile robot );
determine a quality metric of map data of the mapped subarea with respect to the global map (see at least Ondruska Abstract and [0090] “In some embodiments, one or more regions of an existing global map may comprise data of a lower accuracy than a predetermined value, where the predetermined value can be set to signify an acceptable level of quality. In such cases, the one or more regions that have data of quality level lower than the acceptable level of quality may necessitate a capture of new, more accurate map segment data 301 (e.g., image data) which can be verified or validated 305 using the method described herein. The new map segment data 301 may replace the map data of an existing region of the global map (which may also be referred to as an area, segment, section, zone, or portion of the global map) or be used to augment the existing data for the relevant region of the map. In this situation, the quality threshold can be set at the quality of the corresponding map segment that currently exists in the global map. Thus, any new map reconstruction 304 is incorporated if better than the map segment that currently exists in the global map.” See also [0109] “ In example embodiments, the process of updating the global map 806 can include a step of pre-determining one or more requirements for the reconstruction of an area of the global map. In such embodiments, if the reconstruction of an area meets or satisfies these predetermined requirements it permits the global map to be updated with the reconstruction of one or more neighboring map segments meeting these requirements. In some embodiments, the reconstruction would need to be an improvement on the existing global map. This may be determined by the validation of the input data (as previously indicated) or various SfM techniques that generate more accurate map segment reconstructions based on the input image data obtained by one or more devices. In some embodiments, the predetermined requirements can be based on the data used to generate the global map, optionally in the form of one or more constraints… “ See also [0133]); and
update the global map with the map data of the mapped subarea based on the quality metric (see at least Ondruska Abstract and [0090] as cited above , see also and [0109-110] “ In example embodiments, the process of updating the global map 806 can include a step of pre-determining one or more requirements for the reconstruction of an area of the global map. In such embodiments, if the reconstruction of an area meets or satisfies these predetermined requirements it permits the global map to be updated with the reconstruction of one or more neighboring map segments meeting these requirements. In some embodiments, the reconstruction would need to be an improvement on the existing global map. This may be determined by the validation of the input data (as previously indicated) or various SfM techniques that generate more accurate map segment reconstructions based on the input image data obtained by one or more devices. In some embodiments, the predetermined requirements can be based on the data used to generate the global map, optionally in the form of one or more constraints….[0110] According to some embodiments, there is provided a method for updating a global map 806. … The method comprises the following steps: receiving one or more input image data related to the global map; determining a relationship between the input image data and one or more of the plurality of overlapping map segments by determining which of the one or more of the plurality of overlapping map segments correspond to the one or more input image data; generating a reconstruction of at least one of the overlapping map segments corresponding to one or more input image data using the one or more images in the reconstruction; and fusing together each generated reconstruction with the one or more neighboring map segments based on overlapping map portions between each generated reconstruction and each of the one or more neighboring map segments of said generated reconstruction.” See also [0133])
Regarding claim 2, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the quality metric based on a comparison of the map data of the mapped subarea to an second set of map data that at least partially overlaps with the mapped subarea, wherein the second set of map data is received from a second robot in the environment (see at least Ondruska Figure 4 and [0078-0091] Specifically, [0078] discloses first map data and second map data 302 and 303 that overlap and wherein the second set of map data may be from another vehicle or robot. Further, see also [0085-0091] for the teaching of determining the quality metric including comparing map data of mapped subarea to a second set of map data. For example [0085] “The reconstructed map data, and particularly reconstructed pose information, may be checked (validated) 305 frame-by-frame against the corresponding second data gathered by the second sensor to assess the quality of the reconstruction 304 and input data 302 as part of the validation 305. The segment of map data is only considered an output 306 for entry into to the global map when the data is determined to be at a predetermined level of accuracy 305a, for example, 99% consistent with the second data 303 (or with information derived from the second data 303) in the validation step 305….[0086] Verification or validation 305 may be provided using a second set of data 303 as a set of constraints for the image data. In some examples, the second data relates to or correlates to the first data 302…. ….[0087] Therefore, once at least a portion of the reconstruction 304 (the reconstruction comprising one or more landmarks determined by the visual data or a map) of the first dataset 302 is prepared, data from the reconstruction 304 may be compared with associated secondary sensor data 303, for the data 302 used to generate the reconstruction 304. …[0088] Thus, updating the global map 306 with the segment of map data will only occur when the validation step 305 meets a predetermined threshold 305a. In other words, the global map will only be updated when parameters of the first data and second data align.” See also Figure 5 and [0093] “In other embodiments, as shown in FIG. 5, multiple data collects 501, 502, each based on input data from a respective set of sensors as shown at 301a, 301a′, are used for updating the global map. Although only two data collects 501, 502 are shown, it should be appreciated that a plurality of collects can be gathered. As in other described embodiments, the first dataset 302, 302′ from an image sensor can be used to reconstruct map data 304, 304′, and the corresponding second dataset 303, 303′ obtained from a secondary sensor can be used to validate the map”)
Regarding claim 3, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to update, based on whether the map data of the mapped subarea satisfies a predefined criterion with respect to the second set of map data, the global map with the map data of the mapped subarea (see at least Ondruska Figure 4 and [0078-0091] Specifically, [0085] “The reconstructed map data, and particularly reconstructed pose information, may be checked (validated) 305 frame-by-frame against the corresponding second data gathered by the second sensor to assess the quality of the reconstruction 304 and input data 302 as part of the validation 305. The segment of map data is only considered an output 306 for entry into to the global map when the data is determined to be at a predetermined level of accuracy 305a, for example, 99% consistent with the second data 303 (or with information derived from the second data 303) in the validation step 305….[0086] Verification or validation 305 may be provided using a second set of data 303 as a set of constraints for the image data. In some examples, the second data relates to or correlates to the first data 302…. ….[0087] Therefore, once at least a portion of the reconstruction 304 (the reconstruction comprising one or more landmarks determined by the visual data or a map) of the first dataset 302 is prepared, data from the reconstruction 304 may be compared with associated secondary sensor data 303, for the data 302 used to generate the reconstruction 304. …[0088] Thus, updating the global map 306 with the segment of map data will only occur when the validation step 305 meets a predetermined threshold 305a. In other words, the global map will only be updated when parameters of the first data and second data align.”)
Regarding claim 5, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the predefined criterion comprises: an environmental characteristic of the map data with respect to the second set of map data; a floor reflection or a light condition of the mapped subarea; or an extent to which objects in the global map correspond to objects within the map data of the mapped subarea (see at least Ondruska Figure 4 and [0078-0091] Specifically, [0084] “As with any large dataset there will undoubtedly be a percentage of broken or corrupt data. As a result, the SfM pipeline will not always construct a workable map of the captured environment for some image data. Therefore, new data 302, 303 that corresponds to an area, or a map segment 301, needs to be validated 305 before incorporating or updating parts of a global map 306. In some cases, the new data 302, 303 is only incorporated in the global map 306 if it satisfies a predetermined quality threshold 305a. If large amounts of data are gathered, the predetermined quality threshold 305a can be relatively high in order to add to the map 306 only the highest quality data…[0085] “The reconstructed map data, and particularly reconstructed pose information, may be checked (validated) 305 frame-by-frame against the corresponding second data gathered by the second sensor to assess the quality of the reconstruction 304 and input data 302 as part of the validation 305. The segment of map data is only considered an output 306 for entry into to the global map when the data is determined to be at a predetermined level of accuracy 305a, for example, 99% consistent with the second data 303 (or with information derived from the second data 303) in the validation step 305….[0086] Verification or validation 305 may be provided using a second set of data 303 as a set of constraints for the image data. In some examples, the second data relates to or correlates to the first data 302…. ….[0087] Therefore, once at least a portion of the reconstruction 304 (the reconstruction comprising one or more landmarks determined by the visual data or a map) of the first dataset 302 is prepared, data from the reconstruction 304 may be compared with associated secondary sensor data 303, for the data 302 used to generate the reconstruction 304. …[0088] Thus, updating the global map 306 with the segment of map data will only occur when the validation step 305 meets a predetermined threshold 305a. In other words, the global map will only be updated when parameters of the first data and second data align…[0089] If the image data from the first dataset 302 was reconstructed 304 in a way which correlates or aligns with any secondary sensor data 303, for example if the reconstruction 304 corresponds with the known orientation of the camera when the image data 302 was captured, then in at least one embodiment the image data 302 may be assumed as correct. Therefore, the global map may be expanded to include this new data 306. The degree of accuracy required 305a, when considering whether the reconstruction 304 conforms to the requirements of the secondary sensor data 303 may be set as a predetermined value according to the required accuracy of the global map. As an example, the constraints introduced by the secondary data may relate to a percentage difference which should met or satisfied in order to be considered as a validated map segment.”)
Regarding claim 6, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor configured to update the global map comprises the processor configured to stitch together the map data of the mapped subarea with the global map along an edge of the mapped subarea with an edge of the global map (see at least Ondruska Figure 7a and 7b and [0105] “In example embodiments described herein, and with reference to FIG. 7a (which shows only two neighboring segments 602, 602′ but the reader will appreciate that all neighboring segments 602, 602′ in the global map overlap in each direction with any neighboring segments), there is provided a method for creating and/or updating a large-scale global map. In example embodiments, the general approach is to segment the global map in a way that each segment 602 substantially overlaps 604 its neighboring segments 602′. For example, the overlap 604 between neighboring map segments 602, 602′ can be approximately 50%. This overlap enables parallel processing of each map segment, at substantially the same time, whilst the overlap in data between the neighboring map segments 602, 602′ allows the map segments to be stitched together/aligned robustly having been processed.”).
Regarding claim 7, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor configured to determine the correspondence comprises: the processor configured to identify occupied space in the map data of the mapped subarea that differs from the global map; or the processor configured to determine whether the mapped subarea is contained within the global map (see at least Ondruska Figure 11, processor 1102 and [0046] “In a further aspect, the disclosed technology may take the form of a computing system comprising at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to carry out one or more functions of one or more of the aforementioned methods.” See also [0166-0168] “… In particular embodiments, the example computer system 1100 may be configured to perform one or more functions of one or more methods described or illustrated herein either alone or in combination with one or more other computer systems (which may take a similar form to computer system 1100). In particular embodiments, software running on computer system 1100 may enable computer system 1100 to perform one or more functions of one or more methods described or illustrated herein. Herein, a reference to a computer system may encompass a computing device, and vice versa, where appropriate. Moreover, a reference to a computer system may encompass one or more computer systems, where appropriate…[0168] In particular embodiments, computer system 1100 includes at least one processor 1102,”).
Regarding claim 11, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the quality metric comprises a confidence metric for the map data of the mapped subarea see at least Ondruska Abstract and [0090] “In some embodiments, one or more regions of an existing global map may comprise data of a lower accuracy than a predetermined value, where the predetermined value can be set to signify an acceptable level of quality. In such cases, the one or more regions that have data of quality level lower than the acceptable level of quality may necessitate a capture of new, more accurate map segment data 301 (e.g., image data) which can be verified or validated 305 using the method described herein. The new map segment data 301 may replace the map data of an existing region of the global map (which may also be referred to as an area, segment, section, zone, or portion of the global map) or be used to augment the existing data for the relevant region of the map. In this situation, the quality threshold can be set at the quality of the corresponding map segment that currently exists in the global map. Thus, any new map reconstruction 304 is incorporated if better than the map segment that currently exists in the global map.” See also [0109] “ In example embodiments, the process of updating the global map 806 can include a step of pre-determining one or more requirements for the reconstruction of an area of the global map. In such embodiments, if the reconstruction of an area meets or satisfies these predetermined requirements it permits the global map to be updated with the reconstruction of one or more neighboring map segments meeting these requirements. In some embodiments, the reconstruction would need to be an improvement on the existing global map. This may be determined by the validation of the input data (as previously indicated) or various SfM techniques that generate more accurate map segment reconstructions based on the input image data obtained by one or more devices. In some embodiments, the predetermined requirements can be based on the data used to generate the global map, optionally in the form of one or more constraints… “ See also [0133] and Figure 4 and [0078-0091] Specifically, [0085] “The reconstructed map data, and particularly reconstructed pose information, may be checked (validated) 305 frame-by-frame against the corresponding second data gathered by the second sensor to assess the quality of the reconstruction 304 and input data 302 as part of the validation 305. The segment of map data is only considered an output 306 for entry into to the global map when the data is determined to be at a predetermined level of accuracy 305a, for example, 99% consistent with the second data 303 (or with information derived from the second data 303) in the validation step 305….[0086] Verification or validation 305 may be provided using a second set of data 303 as a set of constraints for the image data. In some examples, the second data relates to or correlates to the first data 302…. ….[0087] Therefore, once at least a portion of the reconstruction 304 (the reconstruction comprising one or more landmarks determined by the visual data or a map) of the first dataset 302 is prepared, data from the reconstruction 304 may be compared with associated secondary sensor data 303, for the data 302 used to generate the reconstruction 304. …[0088] Thus, updating the global map 306 with the segment of map data will only occur when the validation step 305 meets a predetermined threshold 305a. In other words, the global map will only be updated when parameters of the first data and second data align.”)
Regarding claim 12, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the robot is configured to update the global map in real-time when the map data of the mapped subarea is received from the robot (see at least Ondruska Figure 8 and [0072] For each map segment 106, in this embodiment, parallel processing 105 may be applied to allow for the input data 102 to be updated into the global map 118 with substantially minimal delay depending on available computing power. For each respective map segment 106, structure from motion (SfM) techniques/algorithms 108 are used to reconstruct a three-dimensional (3D) map for the respective map segment using the input data 102 for the respective map segment 106 to create a respective submap 110.” See also [0161] “In particular embodiments, the vehicles may receive data from and transmit data to a global server system and third-party systems. Examples of received data may include, e.g., instructions, new software or software updates, maps, 1D models, trained or untrained machine-learning models, location information, the vehicle itself, other vehicles, and target destinations, navigation information, traffic information, weather information, and any other suitable information. Examples of data transmitted from the vehicle may include, e.g., telemetry and sensor data, determinations/decisions based on such data, location, navigation data, and any other suitable data.” See also [0164-0166] for discussion of processor on-board vehicle.).
Regarding claim 13, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the updated global map to the robot (see at least Ondruska [0161] “In particular embodiments, the vehicles may receive data from and transmit data to a global server system and third-party systems. Examples of received data may include, e.g., instructions, new software or software updates, maps, 1D models, trained or untrained machine-learning models, location information, the vehicle itself, other vehicles, and target destinations, navigation information, traffic information, weather information, and any other suitable information. Examples of data transmitted from the vehicle may include, e.g., telemetry and sensor data, determinations/decisions based on such data, location, navigation data, and any other suitable data.”)
Regarding claim 14, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to control the robot to use the updated global map for navigation (see at least Ondruska [0165] “In particular embodiments, the vehicle may have a navigation system responsible for safely navigating the vehicle. In particular embodiments, the navigation system may take as input any type of sensor data from, e.g., a GPS module, IMU, LiDAR sensors, optical cameras, radio frequency (RF) transceivers, or any other suitable telemetry or sensory mechanisms. The navigation system may also utilize, e.g., map data, traffic data, accident reports, weather reports, instructions, target destinations, and any other suitable information to determine navigation routes and particular driving operations (e.g., slowing down, speeding up, stopping, swerving, etc.). In particular embodiments, the navigation system may use its determinations to control the vehicle to operate in prescribed manners and to guide the vehicle to its destinations without colliding into other objects. Although the physical embodiment of the navigation system (e.g., the processing unit) appears in a particular location on the vehicle, navigation system may be located in any suitable location in or on the vehicle. Example locations for navigation system include inside the cabin or passenger compartment of the vehicle, near the engine/battery, near the front seats, rear seats, or in any other suitable location.” See also [0160-0165]).
Claim 15 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above. The examiner notes that the computer system 1100 having a processor that performs the process of Ondruska corresponds to the map manager (see Ondruska Figure11 and [0166-0169]).
Claim 16 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 2, above.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 3, above.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 13, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ma et al.( CN-113932790-A, hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a device comprising a processor configured to:
determine a correspondence between a global map of an environment and a mapped subarea of the environment, wherein the mapped subarea is received from a robot within the environment (see at least Ma Figure 1 and Example 1 on page 6, lines 301-329 “ Referring to FIG. 1, an embodiment of the present application provides a map update method, the method includes: S11, obtain the initial pose and sensor data of the robot in the current area; S12, obtain the global pose and map matching score of the robot according to the initial pose, sensor data and the global map; S13, determining whether the scene in the current area has changed according to the global pose or the map matching score; S14, if the scene of the current area changes, update the local map corresponding to the current area…In the embodiment of the present application, the global pose refers to the pose of the robot in the global map, and the initial pose refers to the initial pose of the robot in the current area when the robot is started. The sensor of the robot can be a positioning sensor, which can include but is not limited to lidar, vision and other sensors. In the embodiment, a lidar sensor is used as the positioning sensor of the robot, and specifically, a two-dimensional laser sensor is used to obtain sensor data. The distance information between the robot and the obstacle in a certain environment can be directly obtained through laser scanning ranging. The main working principle is to emit the laser through a rotating mirror and measure the distance between the emitted light and the reflected light from the surface of the object. Time difference to measure distance. Lidar has the advantages of high measurement accuracy, good directionality, and no interference from ambient light. The map matching score refers to the matching degree between the sensor data and the global map. Specifically, the robot can obtain the laser scanning distance data within the scanning range of the two-dimensional laser sensor (scanning at a certain frequency within a certain angle range), and will obtain The laser scan distance data of 1 is mapped on the global map (raster map) to obtain the map matching score.”)
determine a quality metric of map data of the mapped subarea with respect to the global map (see at least Ma (see at least Ma Figure 1 and Example 1 on page 6, lines 326-329 “The map matching score refers to the matching degree between the sensor data and the global map. Specifically, the robot can obtain the laser scanning distance data within the scanning range of the two-dimensional laser sensor (scanning at a certain frequency within a certain angle range), and will obtain The laser scan distance data of 1 is mapped on the global map (raster map) to obtain the map matching score.” See also Figure 2 and lines 385-386 “Further, in S13, determine whether the difference between the global pose and the initial pose is less than the pose threshold, or determine whether the map matching score is greater than the map threshold” See also lines 467-478 “…The matching module 32 is also used to obtain the relative relationship between the sensor data and the global map, as well as the map matching score; obtain the global pose of the robot according to the initial pose and the relative relationship….The determination module 33 is also used to judge whether the difference between the global pose and the initial pose is less than the pose threshold, or whether the map matching score is greater than the map threshold; if the difference between the global pose and the initial pose is less than the pose threshold, Or when the map matching score is greater than the map threshold, it is determined that the scene in the current area has changed…Further, the update module 34 is also used to construct a new local map corresponding to the current area according to the global pose and sensor data if there is no local map corresponding to the current area; if there is a local map corresponding to the current area…”); and
update the global map with the map data of the mapped subarea based on the quality metric (see at least Ma Figure 4 and lines 501-517 “S31, receive the local map sent by the robot; for example, receive the local maps sent by multiple robots respectively; S32, if the area corresponding to the local map in the global map is an updatable area, update the area in the global map according to the local map. Optionally, the method may further include: sending the updated area to the robot. In a specific implementation, certain areas can be preset in the global map as non-update areas, and if the area corresponding to the received local map is a non-update area, the area will not be updated in the global map according to the local map; If the area corresponding to the received local map is an update area, the area will be updated in the global map according to the local map, which can ensure that the static area (ie, the non-update area) will not be updated, and also avoid the large-scale large-scale ultra-high frequency. The dynamic is updated by the occurrence of errors, improving the robustness of the updated map.”).
Regarding claim 10, Ma discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor configured to determine the correspondence comprises the processor configured to determine whether the robot is able to localize itself on the global map (see at Ma lines 44-93 wherein it is determined that current area has changed and the robot is unable to localize itself. For example lines 52-66 teach “In the above implementation process, by obtaining the initial pose and sensor data of the robot in the current area, the global pose and map matching score of the robot are obtained, … It can solve the problem that the robot cannot obtain an accurate pose due to the dynamic change of some areas in the map constructed by the SLAM technology in the prior art, can improve the accuracy and update efficiency of the map update, and reduce the cost of manual composition….Further, determining whether the scene in the current area has changed according to the global pose or map matching score includes:…Judging whether the difference between the global pose and the initial pose is less than a pose threshold, or judging whether the map matching score is greater than a map threshold…If the difference between the global pose and the initial pose is less than a pose threshold, or if the map matching score is greater than a map threshold, it is determined that the scene in the current area has changed.” See also Ma lines 26-30. “However, in practical applications, some scenes in the map constructed by SLAM technology are constantly changing over time, which makes the robot unable to obtain an accurate matching pose (that is, the matching between the current scene and the map) in this area, even here The pose accuracy of the robot in the dynamic area does not meet the application requirements, resulting in the robot not working properly.
Regarding claim 13, Ma teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the updated global map to the robot (see at least Ma lines 571-580 “After updating the area in the global map according to the local map, the method further includes: sending the updated value corresponding to each grid in the area to the robot. The robots here can be understood as all robots in the area corresponding to the local map, which can be one or more. Specifically, only the updated value of each grid in the area that needs to be updated is sent to each robot in the area, and all robots can update the local map according to the received updated value of the grid to complete the maps of multiple robots.”)
Claim 15 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above. The examiner notes that the map updating apparatus of shown in Figure 6 of Ma corresponds to the map manager (see at least Ma lines 584-612, “The map updating apparatus of the fourth embodiment can be applied to but not limited to a server, and the map updating method of the third embodiment can be implemented. The options in the third embodiment above are also applicable to this embodiment, and are not described in detail here. For the rest of the content of this embodiment, reference may be made to the content of the third embodiment, which is not repeated in this embodiment.” See also Figure 7 ) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ondruska in view of Ma.
Regarding claim 4, Ondruska teaches the device of claim 3, and further teaches updating a map based on locations of objects in the mapped subarea and second set of map data that at least partially overlapped with the mapped subarea (see at least Ondrusky Figures 7a, and 7b and citations provided above in claim 2), however Ondruska does not explicitly teach that the predefined criterion comprises an occupancy metric that characterizes occupied spaces in the mapped subarea.
Ma teaches the predefined criterion comprises an occupancy metric that characterizes occupied spaces (see at least Ma 531-543 “That is to say, the map corresponding to an area is updated only after the scene of a certain area is observed to change many times, which ensures the accuracy of the updated map. Here, it can be that the same robot observes a scene change in a certain area multiple times, or it can be that multiple robots observe a scene change in a certain area multiple times….In S32, first determine the value corresponding to each grid in the local map; update the area in the global map according to the value corresponding to each grid. In this embodiment of the present application, a value corresponding to each grid is an obstacle probability value corresponding to each grid, and the obstacle probability value is used to indicate the possibility that the grid is occupied by an obstacle.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ondruska with the teaching of Ma, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Ma teaches that an occupancy grid assists to fully realize autonomous navigation of a robot through an environment (see at least Ma lines 19-30).
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 4, above.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ondruska in view of Rexhepi et al. (US-20250182317-A1, hereinafter “Rexhepi”)
Regarding claim 8, Ondruska discloses the device of claim 1, including wherein the quality metric is based on a comparison of the map data of the mapped subarea to an second set of map data that at least partially overlaps with the mapped subarea (see at least Ondruska Figure 7a and 7b and the citations provided for claim 2 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to receive the second set of map data from a fixed sensor within the environment.
Rexhepi teaches that map data can be obtained from a fixed sensor within the environment (See at least Rexhepi [0065] “The camera may either be handheld by a user, mounted to a user's head, AR glasses or mounted to a cart. The camera may also be part of a mobile device like a cell phone or a tablet PC. There may also be at least one stationary fixed or tiltable camera. If the camera's position is known, the computer system may determine the distance, direction, and orientation of an article in the camera's view. Further, a movable camera may be used for a SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) algorithm in the computer system for determining the camera position and to generate and/or update a map of the camera's environment.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ondruska with the teaching of Rexhepi, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Rexhepi teaches a stationary fixed camera can be used to assist with simultaneous localization and mapping of an environment used by a robot to navigate the environment.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ondruska and Rexhepi teach the device of claim 8, wherein the fixed sensor comprises a stationary camera, depth camera, infrared camera, or light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor (See at least Rexhepi [0065] “The camera may either be handheld by a user, mounted to a user's head, AR glasses or mounted to a cart. The camera may also be part of a mobile device like a cell phone or a tablet PC. There may also be at least one stationary fixed or tiltable camera.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Amer et. al (US-20250251740-A1) is cited for showing a fixed camera for obtaining sensor data for updating a global map.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662