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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on September 20, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on September 20, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/107,806 is acknowledged. Examiner notes Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application the date of the provisional application. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Additionally, Applicant’s request for priority to U.S. App. No. 17/515,923 filed November 1, 2021 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 2, 15, and 19, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 15 is fully encompassed by claims 1, 2, 2, 15, and 19, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,269.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the updating of the vehicle trajectory, found in the final limitation of each of the independent claims 1, 8, and 15, is being interpreted as an update to the movement of a vehicle and is considered a practical application.
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 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) 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):
(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), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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:
a. a plurality of asynchronous image devices… in claim 15. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at [0038] of the instant original specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S Pub. No. 2022/0121847 (hereinafter, “Sibley”).
Regarding claim 1, Sibley discloses A computer-implemented method (see at least Fig. 1, [0044], [0076], [0080], and the publication generally; the method may be computer-implemented), the method comprising:
identifying a reference image frame that at least partially overlaps a field of view of an image frame (see at least [0005] and [0105]; the identified images (i.e., one or more reference image frames) may at least partially overlap the field of view of the captured images (i.e., image frames));
determining an association between the image frame and at least one three-dimensional map point of a plurality of three-dimensional map points, wherein the plurality of three-dimensional map points are representative of an environment of an autonomous vehicle (see at least [0069], [0075]-[0078], [0105], [0109], [0113], and [0125]; each identified image (i.e., one or more reference image frames) may include corresponding 2D or 3D coordinates (i.e., one or more 3D map points) corresponding to the geographical position of the identified objects within the identified image (i.e., one or more reference image frames) within an environment of an autonomous vehicle);
generating, based on the association between the image frame and the at least one three-dimensional map point, an estimated pose for the autonomous vehicle relative to the environment (see at least [0061]-[0063], [0069], [0075]-[0078], [0080], [0105], [0109], [0113], and [0123]; the autonomous vehicle carrying the treatment system may generate an estimated pose of the vehicle relative to the environment as it moves along a path while collecting real-time captured image data (i.e., input image frames) based on the determined coordinates and/or features/patches (i.e., 3D map points) associated with the identified images (i.e., one or more reference image frames) and based on the comparison between the captured image data (i.e., input image frames) and the identified images (i.e., one or more reference image frames)); and
updating, based on the estimated pose, a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle, wherein the trajectory of the autonomous vehicle is associated with a continuous-time motion model associated with the reference image frame ((see at least [0061]-[0063], [0069], [0075]-[0078], [0080], [0105], [0109], [0113], and [0123]; the pose estimation may be utilized for navigational purposes and updated as additional information is added while the vehicle carrying the treatment system moves along a path (i.e., a continuous-time motion model)).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1. Additionally, Sibley discloses an autonomous vehicle (see at least Sibley at [0080] and [0147]), processors (see at least Sibley at [0004]), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see at least Sibley at [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Sibley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Sibley discloses wherein the reference image frame comprises a previous image frame captured at a reference time that is prior to a time at which the image frame is received (see at least [0005] and [0105]; the identified images (i.e., one or more reference image frames) may at least partially overlap the field of view of the captured images (i.e., respective input image frames), and the identified images (i.e., one or more reference image frames) may correspond to images captured prior to the captured images (i.e., respective input image frames)).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Sibley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Sibley discloses comprising:
generating a comparison between the estimated pose for the autonomous vehicle relative to the environment to an estimated pose associated with the reference image frame (see at least [0005], [0075], [0105]; a comparison is performed between the estimated autonomous vehicle pose and an estimated pose associated with the reference image frame); and
determining, based on the comparison, at least one of a translation or a rotation of the estimated pose for the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0109]; optical flow (i.e., translation and rotation of image features) may be used during comparison of keyframes and captured images).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Sibley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Sibley discloses comprising:
generating a comparison between the at least one three-dimensional map point to a reobservation threshold, wherein the reobservation threshold is indicative of a level of three-dimensional map points associated with the reference image frame(see at least [0005], [0075], [0105]; a comparison is performed between the estimated autonomous vehicle pose and an estimated pose associated with the reference image frame); and
based on the comparison, identifying an updated reference image frame (see at least [0079] and [0109]; once captured and processed, the images are put into, for example, a database or crop plot repository and become the reference images for future processing).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Sibley discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Sibley discloses comprising:
in response to identifying an updated reference image frame, updating the trajectory of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Fig. 9 and [0105]; the spraying vehicle trajectory may be updated based on updated images for reference by the vehicle).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Sibley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Sibley discloses comprising:
identifying one or more matching two-dimensional points of interest for the reference image frame that correspond to at least one two-dimensional point of interest for the image frame (see at least [0062], [0066], [0072], and [0109]; features or patches (i.e., points of interest within the image frames) of 2D images may be identified and matched).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Sibley discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Sibley discloses comprising:
determining, based on the one or more matching two-dimensional points of interest, the at least one three-dimensional map point (see at least [0082]; the map may be 2D or 3D and may be based on 2D and/or 3D images).
Claim 14 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 7.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0003404 which relates to the use of reference frames for the purpose of SLAM and real-time navigation of autonomous vehicles using an HD map which is continuously updated over time including recomputing when a sensed change exceeds a threshold; and
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0103236 which relates to modification of map data based on sensed data, and updating an autonomous vehicle trajectory based on the modifications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666