DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Responsive to the Amendment filed July 28, 2026. Claims 2 and 9 were amended. Claims 15 and 16 are new. Claims 1-16 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (second notice).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues with substance:
Argument A: Akiva's aerial images are for offline map creation, not real-time continuous obtaining. Akiva's aerial images are collected for offline map enhancement purposes, not continuously obtained during real- time driving as recited by claims 1 and 8.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Akiva’s system and method is performed in real time and analyzes images in real time during vehicle movement. See at least paragraphs [0029, 0050, 0066]).
Argument B: Akiva provides navigation assistance, not "perception results for autonomy-level driving. Claims 6 and 13: Akiva's 0071, 0084, 0103 (cited by the Examiner) describe: imaging device orientation (0071), retrieving visual objects based on movement vectors (0084), and detecting pavement edges to calculate enhanced positioning ( 0103). None of these teach predicting a future location of a road user.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “for use in an autonomy-level driving of the vehicle” is intended use language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Akiba’s system provides perception results that can be used in any vehicle.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations:
“aerial image signatures are generated by applying a self-attention mechanism to aerial image segment patches, and wherein the processing of the aerial image signatures involves matching the aerial image signatures to vehicle sensed image signatures using a cross-view localization module to generate probabilistic location information”n in claim 2,
“dynamically allocating a coverage area to a patch of an aerial image, wherein the dynamically allocating comprises allocating a coverage area of a path that captures an urban area that is smaller than a coverage area of a patch that captures a rural area” in claim 15,
“wherein the dynamically allocating comprises allocating a coverage area of a path that captures an urban area that is smaller than a coverage area of a patch that captures a rural area” in claim 16
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claim 15 contains the limitations dynamically allocating a coverage area to a patch of an aerial image, wherein the dynamically allocating comprises allocating a coverage area of a path that captures an urban area that is smaller than a coverage area of a patch that captures a rural area which are not found in the original disclosure and appears to be new matter. Newly added claim 16 contains the limitations dynamically allocating comprises allocating a coverage area of a path that captures an urban area that is smaller than a coverage area of a patch that captures a rural area which also appears to be new matter.
None of the cited sections nor any other section appears to teach any form of dynamic allocation, let alone dynamically allocating a coverage area as claimed.
Clarification of proper support is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Akiva et al (US 2018/0188046).
As per claim 1, Akiva et al teach a method of real time air perception, comprising:
continuously obtaining, by a computerized system, aerial image signatures of patches of aerial images in accordance with a determined driving path of a vehicle, such that the patches of aerial images capture at least parts of an environment of the determined driving path for the vehicle (see at least fig 1 (106), paragraphs [0039, 0079, 0083]; obtaining visual data such as aerial images with coordinates of the vehicle’s surroundings);
processing, by the computerized system and in real time, the aerial image signatures in accordance with one or more road elements within an environment along the determined driving path of the vehicle (see at least fig 1 (102, 104, 110) and corresponding text; obtaining GPS and movement vector, capture images surroundings of the vehicle, analyzing the images and visual data to calculate a relative positioning of the vehicle with respect to the visual objects); and
providing perception results, based on the processing by a classification process running with a neural network in a real time driving of the vehicle, for use in an autonomy-level driving of the vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0087, 0113], fig 1 (112, 114), fig 3-4 and corresponding text; presenting an updated navigation map using the map enhancer and visual classification functions in a neural network).
As per claim 3, Akiva et al teach wherein the continuously obtaining involves downloading the aerial image signatures in accordance with the determined driving path for the vehicle (see at least paragraph [0070]).
As per claim 4, Akiva et al teach wherein providing the perception results involves classifying a road element, based on the processing (see at least paragraph [0033]).
As per claim 5, Akiva et al teach wherein providing the perception results involves providing behavioral information, based on the processing, of a road users captured by the patches of the aerial images (see at least paragraphs [0055-57]).
As per claim 6, Akiva et al teach wherein providing the perception results involves providing a prediction, based on the processing, of a future location of a road user captured by the patches of the aerial images (see at least paragraphs [0071, 0084, 0103]).
As per claim 7, Akiva et al teach determining a location of the vehicle based on, at least in part, the processing of the aerial image signatures (see at least fig 1; obtaining visual data such as aerial images with coordinates of the vehicle’s surroundings).
Claims 8 and 10-14 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
As per claim 15, Akiva et al teach dynamically allocating a coverage area to a patch of an aerial image (see at least paragraph [0099; adapted for movement path, route or destination), wherein the dynamically allocating comprises allocating a coverage area of a path that captures an urban area that is smaller than a coverage area of a patch that captures a rural area (non-functional descriptive language).
The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
As per claim 16, Akiva et al teach, wherein the dynamically allocating comprises allocating a coverage area of a path that captures an urban area that is smaller than a coverage area of a patch that captures a rural area (non-functional descriptive language).
The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiva et al (US 2018/0188046) in view of WANG (US 2021/01301821).
As per claim 2, Akiva et al teach processing images such as aerial images and combining such aerial images with ground images and using computer vision methods, techniques and algorithms such as image processing patterns and recognition on collected images (see at least paragraphs [0039, 0052, 0085], fig 1) but fails to explicitly teach wherein aerial image signatures are generated by applying a self-attention mechanism to aerial image segment patches, and wherein the processing of the aerial image signatures involves matching the aerial image signatures to vehicle sensed image signatures using a cross-view localization module to generate probabilistic location information providing aerial-to-vehicle fused results between the aerial image signatures and sensor signatures of sensor data captured by a sensor of the vehicle. However, in the same field of endeavor, WANG teaches a collaborative map construction between unmanned aerial vehicle and a ground vehicle, and matching images obtained from both vehicles to create the collaborative map. The matching includes determining image data such as pixel values, image points, and or references objects for aerial and ground images and matching images based on that data (see at least paragraphs [0042, 0054, 0056, 0082, 0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the Applicant filed the invention to combine WANG with Akiva et al because doing so would provide a more accurate way match and combine similar images.
Claim 9 contains similar limitations as claim 2 above and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights