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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
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 13-15 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.
Regarding claim 13, the preamble recites “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1”; however, such a medium is not present in claim 1 leading to an antecedent basis issue. For the purposes of prior art rejections, claim 13 will be taken to depend on claim 9 instead. Dependent claims 14-15 do not cure claim 13 of this issue and are similarly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaal et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0263992 in view of Tran, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0108926.
Regarding claim 17, Gaal teaches a computing system comprising:
a network interface for communicating over at least one data network (see Gaal; Figure 14, communication interface 1470 connected to local network 1480);
at least one processor (see Figure 14, processor 1402);
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor (see Figure 14, memory 1404 and paragraph [0142]) such that the computing system is configured to:
maintain a map that is representative of a real-world environment (see Figure 1, live map 105 and paragraph [0033]);
obtain sensor data captured by one or more vehicles operating within a given area of the real-world environment (see Figure 1, ingestion 119 and sensor data from vehicle 103 sent over network 113 and paragraph [0042]);
based on an evaluation of (i) the obtained sensor data and (ii) the map, detect an agent behavior pattern within the given area that is not reflected in any layer of the map (see Figure 1, aggregation 129 and features 133 along with paragraph [0046]); and
update at least one layer of the map to include information about the agent behavior pattern (see Figure 1, map update 109 and paragraph [0047]).
Gaal does not expressively teach wherein the map comprising a plurality of layers, wherein each layer of the map is encoded with a different type of map data.
However, Tran in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system configured for maintaining a map that is representative of a real-world environment (see Tran paragraph [0072]); obtaining sensor data that is indicative of a given area of the real-world environment (see Figure 7H, step 2164 and paragraph [0073] referring to various sensors that are used to create a 3D point cloud); based on an evaluation of (i) the obtained sensor data and (ii) map data corresponding to the given area (see Figure 7H, step 2176), updating the map (see paragraph [0124]) as taught in Gaal wherein
the map comprising a plurality of layers, wherein each layer of the map is encoded with a different type of map data (see paragraph [0072]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the map of Gaal with that having multiple layers of Tran to yield the predictable results of successfully passing on HD map data to a user.
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite similar limitations as claim 17, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Gaal in view of Tran teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches wherein the detected agent behavior pattern within the given area comprises vehicle trajectories within the given area that are not consistent with any prior vehicle trajectories for the given area that are encoded into the map (see Gaal Figure 2, which is an embodiment of campaign management 101 of Figure 1, discovery module 203 and paragraph [0075], “The discovery module 203 can specify the target number of vehicle pose paths to obtain in the set 601 to achieve a target confidence that set of vehicles pose paths or trajectories 601 correspond to a new or previously unmapped road segment (e.g., with confidence increasing with higher numbers of observed paths)”).
Claims 3 and 11 similar limitations as claim 18, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Gaal in view of Tran teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches wherein the at least one layer of the map comprises a real-time layer of the map (see Tran paragraph [0076] and Gaal paragraph [0034]).
Claims 5 and 13 similar limitations as claim 20, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, Gaal in view of Tran teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches wherein the program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to detect the agent behavior pattern that is not reflected in any layer of the map comprise program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to:
based on the evaluation of the obtained sensor data, identify multiple instances of the agent behavior pattern within the given area (see Gaal Figure 1, aggregation 129 and paragraph [0046]);
based on identifying the multiple instances of the agent behavior pattern within the given area, determine that the agent behavior pattern within the given area has been detected with a threshold level of confidence (see Gaal paragraphs [0066] and [0084]); and
based on the evaluation of the map, determine that the detected agent behavior pattern is not encoded within any layer of the map (see Gaal paragraph [0046]).
Claim 2 recites similar limitations as claim 10, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, Gaal in view of Tran teaches all the limitations of claim 9, but does not expressively teach wherein the at least one layer of the map comprises a priors layer of the map.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace one of the layers taught in Gaal in view of Tran with a priors layer as claimed to yield the predictable results of successfully storing prior map data for reference.
Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 16, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaal et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0263992 in view of Tran, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0108926 and Breed et al, U.S. Publication No. 2009/0140887.
Regarding claim 19, Gaal in view of Tran teaches all the limitations of claim 17, but does not expressively teach wherein the information about the agent behavior pattern comprises a level of permanence of the agent behavior pattern.
However, Breed in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system configured to maintain a map that is representative of a real-world environment (see Breed Figure 27, data facility 300 and paragraph [0458]) obtain sensor data captured by one or more vehicles operating within a given area of the real-world environment (see Figure 27, vehicles 294 and paragraph [0455], “The probe vehicles 294 provide information about one or more roads on which the host vehicle will travel or is expected to travel at some time in the future, the difference being if the road the vehicle expects to travel on is congested, the driver of the host vehicle can take an alternative route”); based on an evaluation of (i) the obtained sensor data and (ii) the map, detect an agent behavior pattern; and update at least one layer of the map to include information about the agent behavior pattern (see paragraph [0458]) as taught in Gaal in view of Tran wherein
the information about the agent behavior pattern comprises a level of permanence of the agent behavior pattern (see paragraph [0458]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of determining permeance of agent behavior affecting a map change as taught in Breed with the system taught in Gaal in view of Tran, the motivation being to prevent temporary changes from being permanently added to maps thereby decreasing their long-term accuracy.
Claims 4 and 12 similar limitations as claim 19, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Montealegre et al, U.S. Publication No. 2005/0102098 similarly teaches a network interface for communicating over at least one data network (see Montealegre Figure 1, wireless access device 112 and paragraph [0028]);
at least one processor; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor (see paragraph [0022]) such that the computing system is configured to:
maintain a map that is representative of a real-world environment (see Figure 1, digital map database 108 and paragraph [0025]);
obtain sensor data captured by one or more vehicles operating within a given area of the real-world environment (see Figure 1, positioning system 110 and paragraph [0026]);
based on an evaluation of (i) the obtained sensor data and (ii) the map (see Figure 2, which per paragraphs [0016]-[0017] is a software representation of the system shown via hardware in Figure 1, artificial intelligence module 210 taking in an input from the map database 108 and positioning module 200), detect an agent behavior pattern within the given area that is not reflected in any layer of the map (see Figure 3, which is an embodiment of the artificial intelligence module 210 of Figure 2, database error correction component 302 and paragraph [0056] along with new road component 304 and paragraph [0060]); and
update at least one layer of the map to include information about the agent behavior pattern (see paragraph [0064]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights