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 (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2025, 01/11/2024 were filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding the independent claims, they recite the limitation (e.g. in claim 1) “performing evaluation of at least one of a plurality of map data each generated based on measurement data of a plurality of sensors arranged on a movable apparatus”
This limitation renders the scope of protection unclear in that it is unclear if a instance of “map data” requires measurement data from multiple sensors (of the plurality) or if map data derived from a single sensor of the multiple sensors would read on the claim language. I.e. it is unclear if “generated based on measurement data of a plurality of sensor(s)” means that the “measurement data” is a fusion/combination of the plurality of the sensor (meaning effectively at least two sensors/data from them is needed) or if measurement data of the plurality is effectively a group/list of all the data outputted by the plurality of sensors and thus only one sensor’s corresponding data would be needed to read on the claim language.
As such each independent claim is rejected under U.S.C 112(b) as indefinite in regards to what does/doesn’t constitute “map data generated based on measurement data of a plurality of sensor(s)”. And each dependent claim does fix this lack of clarity regarding the map data.
Claim 12 is 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.
The term “degree of deficiency” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “degree of deficiency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
When detailed in the specification, while examples of scenarios where sensor data is deficient are provided (e.g. pixels of image being zero, amount of point cloud data) is doesn’t not define how to generally calculate the degree of deficiency for sensor data in general. E.g. In the case of the sensor being a camera/ image sensor it is known that pixel(s) becoming zero is deficient but at what pixel count does an image start become “deficient” at, is the corresponding degree of deficiency linear, exponential, some threshold cutoff?
Further detailed in [0105] degree of deficiency of sensor data is unclear in that [0105]-[0106] seem to suggest degree of deficiency is deficiency in each modality/sensor type but not necessarily how much each modality is deficient, as such it is unclear if “degree of deficiency” is a degree of each individual modality or if it is the degree of deficiency in the overall/fused data?
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward an apparatus.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of evaluating an error of map data based some unspecified “evaluation information” which is “based on” measurement data from a plurality of sensor. This is equivalent to a person looking at a written map/piece of paper and determining if they think it looks correct/accurate.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While the claim does recite that the apparatus includes comprises one or more memories and one or more processors, this is merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Further while the plurality of map data is generated based on measurement data of a plurality of sensors, the sensors (and their operation) are not positively claimed, only the acquiring of the evaluation is claimed. As such it is insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering recited as a high level of generality.
Further while the claim recites “perform notification” this is merely outputting the results (displaying) of the abstract idea. Which is insignificant post-solution activity.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of “acquire” and “evaluate” are performed by a processor and memory, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Acquiring and performing evaluations (computations) on data is a fundamental activity of computers. The current “evaluate an error” is recited as a high level of generality/functionally claimed in that there are no recited details as to what/how this evaluation is performed beyond that is generally based on “evaluation information”.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 2, it recites that the error evaluation is based on the pose and position at each measurement point; again the actual control to measurement points (and subsequent recording of the information) is not positively claimed. As such this is still part of the abstract idea in that can be performed in the human mind. It is equivalent to a person asking/thinking to themselves for this given position/location (e.g. front room) and the way I’m facing should I be able to see the corresponding information?
Regarding Claim 3, it is further reciting evaluating the error based on reliability of the position/orientation. This is equivalent to a person thinking to themselves do they trust the source of the data (e.g. another person who initially mapped out the area) as reliable and thus adjusting their expectations based on the reliability. (e.g. a person would trust a skilled cartographer’s written map (i.e. more reliable) and thus would probably assume any disagreement they have with a cartographer’s map is not an actual error/a mistake on their part versus the map from an unskilled cartographer).
Regarding Claim 4, it recites that the evaluation is based on some unspecified “environmental information”; this is equivalent to a person thinking “it is foggy therefore the map is probably going to be inaccurate/miss farther away landmarks”
Regarding Claim 5, it further recites that the environmental information includes at least one of “sensor-related” information and/or “movement path” related information. This is equivalent to a person thinking/knowing that it was night time when a cartographer created a map visually, and thus knowing that people have poorer eye sight during night/in lowlight environments. (eyesight = sensor information). Additionally “movement path” related information would include the evaluator knowing that the cartographer mapped the area as they walked along the bottom of a valley, ergo the map/portions near the bottom of the valley are going to be more accurate/detailed compared to the surrounding hill/mountain tops. And thus what constitutes an “error” in the map data would change based on that.
Regarding Claim 6, it further recites that sensor-related information includes “type”, “characteristics”, or “installation position” of the sensor. This is equivalent to the evaluator knowing that a cartographer is color-blind (i.e. “characteristic” information of the sensor (eyesight)) and thus information (and errors thereof) in the map which relates to coloration of rocks/plants would be affected by this.
Regarding Claim 7, it further recites that the evaluation of the error/evaluation information includes position and orientation and that an error between the plurality of data points is based on position and orientation of each data point, at the level of generality currently claimed this is an evaluation which can be performed in the human mind/with pen and paper.
Regarding Claim 10, it further recites evaluate the error of map data based on measurement data, this is equivalent to a person looking at/hearing multiple reports and thus evaluating the map data based on how much those multiple reports correspond or disagree with the map data.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites evaluating the error of the map data is based on the deficiency of the measurement data, this is equivalent to marking areas on the map as unknown/only providing general shapes in an area when there are no/little reports describing an area.
Regarding Claim 12, it further defines what information the notification includes, as such it is still merely outputting the results of the abstract idea/insignificant post-solution activity of outputting the results of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 14, it is equivalent to claim 1 varying that additionally recites “generating” a plurality of map data this is merely appending pre-solution activity (data gathering) at a high level of generality which is Well understood routine and conventional in the field. (i.e. generating map data is WURC part of SLAM in the field of robotics at the level of generality claimed).
Claim 16 is a method equivalent to claim 1 it has the same 101 analysis/rejection
Claim 18 is a non-transitory computer readable medium equivalent to claim 1, it has the same 101 analysis/rejection.
Claims 13, 15, 17, and 19 are not rejected under U.S.C 101 as they positively recite control of the movement of the moveable apparatus (via the processors) as such they recite a vehicle control step and thus integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Regarding Claims 8-9, they are not rejected under U.S.C 101 as they recite that the evaluation is based on processing load status, “processing load status” under Broadest reasonable interpretation is not a parameter which can be reasonable known/used in the human mind (or with aid of pen and paper) and thus claim 8 (and by extension claim 9) does not recite an abstract idea “reasonably” performed in the human mind.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180347982 A1, Nam et al, “MOVABLE MARKING SYSTEM, CONTROLLING METHOD FOR MOVABLE MARKING APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM”
Regarding Claim 1, Nam et al teaches “An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the storing instructions to:”( [0005] “ Provided is a movable marking system capable of determining an environment of space targeted for scanning or space targeted for work and accurately determining its position, a method of controlling a movable marking apparatus, and a computer-readable recording medium.” The system is/includes computer readable medium (i.e. processor and memory) );” acquire evaluation information”( [0129] The prior map refers to a map including information regarding the space targeted for scanning and marking data corresponding to the space targeted for scanning, and in an embodiment, the prior map may be a CAD drawing. Selectively, the prior map may be understood as a reference map including the marking data, and the prior map may provide information regarding the space targeted for scanning even before scan data regarding the space targeted for scanning is obtained by the sensing unit 130.
[0130] FIG. 6A illustrates a prior map, and the prior map may include information and marking data regarding space targeted for scanning. Referring to FIG. 6A, the space targeted for scanning includes a first space S1 and a second space S2 divided by a wall, and the first space S1 includes circular marking data and the second space S2 includes triangular marking data.” A previous map is obtained (the prior map = evaluation information));” for performing evaluation of at least one of a plurality of map data each generated based on measurement data of a plurality of sensors arranged on a movable apparatus; evaluate an error of at least one map data of the plurality of map data based on the evaluation information; and perform notification based on the evaluation of the error.”( [0179] However, when a result of comparing the prior map with the scan data is beyond a preset error range, the map generating unit 250 may output an alarm. The alarm may be understood as a type of error reporting. On the other hand, when the result of comparing the prior map with the scan data is within the error range, the prior map may be corrected based on the scan data.” Here an error of scan/map data (current scan) is evaluated based on evaluation information (prior map/previous map) and based on this (if they are too different) alarm (notification) is performed. + [0058] teaches multiple sensors are used as part of moveable apparatus)
Regarding Claim 2, Nam et al teaches “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation information includes information on position and orientation of the movable apparatus at a measurement point of the map data, and wherein the one or more processors further execute the storing instructions to evaluate the error of the map data based on the position and orientation of the movable apparatus.”( [0113] The IMU may measure acceleration and angular speed data of the movable marking apparatus 10, and the acceleration and angular speed data may be used to calculate a speed and an orientation angle of the movable marking apparatus 10. The encoder is a position sensor capable of measuring displacement of the movable marking apparatus 10 and may provide data regarding a movement distance of the movable marking apparatus 10.” Here teaches that as part of the comparison i.e. [0179] the scan data/comparison with map data includes orientation and position data derived from the IMU )
Regarding Claim 3, Nam et al teaches “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation information includes reliability of position and orientation of the movable apparatus at a measurement point of the map data, and wherein the one or more processors further execute the storing instructions to evaluate the error of the map data based on the reliability.”( [0119] In this regard, a reliability value may be assigned by taking into account measurement accuracy of the scanning sensor 131, the second sensor 133, and the third sensor 134, and scan data, IMU data (acceleration and angular speed data), and distance data having the reliability value reflected may be used.
[0120] Reliability regarding data obtained from the scanning sensor 131, the IMU 133, and the encoder 134 may be determined by taking into account an error rate showing up in its own specifications of each measurement apparatus. Accordingly, a higher reliability value may be assigned to data provided from a measurement apparatus providing more accurate data compared to other measurement apparatuses, and thus, a position of the movable marking apparatus 10 may be accurately detected.” Here teaches assigning of reliability values to the measurements, and the subsequent judging of the current scan/map with prior art thus incorporates this.)
Regarding Claim 4, Nam et al teaches “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation information includes environment information of the movable apparatus, and wherein the one or more processors further execute the storing instructions to evaluate the error of the map data based on the environment information.”( [0121] The reliability value may vary according to time. For example, when the movable marking apparatus 10 is set to move at a speed of 1 m/s, a distance that the movable marking apparatus 10 moves during one second should be measured as 1 m. In addition, by taking into account distance data measured during the one second through the encoder 134 and an error rate according to specifications of the encoder 134, a reliability value regarding the distance data may be differently applied after the one second.” Here teaches at part of the reliability data includes movement speed (i.e. environment information))
Regarding Claim 5, Nam et al teaches “The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the environment information includes at least one of sensor-related information related to at least one sensor among the plurality of sensors, and movement path-related information related to a movement path of the movable apparatus.”([0121] as cited in claim 4, movement speed affects the reliability, movement speed would be a form of “movement path-related information” + [0119] takes into account the specific sensor/its accuracy which would read on “information related to at least one sensor”)
Regarding Claim 6, Nam et al teaches “The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the sensor-related information includes at least one of a type of the sensor, characteristics of the sensor, and an installation position of the sensor.”( [0119] In this regard, a reliability value may be assigned by taking into account measurement accuracy of the scanning sensor 131, the second sensor 133, and the third sensor 134, and scan data, IMU data (acceleration and angular speed data), and distance data having the reliability value reflected may be used.” Accuracy of the sensors it taken into account, i.e. “characteristics of the sensor”)
Regarding Claim 7, Nam et al teaches “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation information includes information on position and orientation of the movable apparatus at each measurement point of the plurality of map data, and wherein the one or more processors further execute the storing instructions to evaluate an error between the plurality of map data based on the information on each position and each orientation between the plurality of map data.”( [0179] However, when a result of comparing the prior map with the scan data is beyond a preset error range, the map generating unit 250 may output an alarm. The alarm may be understood as a type of error reporting. On the other hand, when the result of comparing the prior map with the scan data is within the error range, the prior map may be corrected based on the scan data.” Here the current scan data/map (from [0113]-[0114] includes position and orientation data from the onboard IMU) is compared with the map data to determine if they align or not.)
Regarding Claim 10, Nam et al teaches “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation information includes the measurement data of at least one of the plurality of sensors, and wherein the one or more processors further execute the storing instructions evaluate the error of the map data based on the measurement data.”([0179] in view of [0113]-[0114] scan data (measurement data) is compared with map and if they disagree (i.e. evaluate the error between map and scan/evaluation) then an alarm is presented )
Regarding Claim 12, Nam et al teaches “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information of notification based on the evaluation of an error includes at least one of error information and an operation method of the movable apparatus.”( [0179] However, when a result of comparing the prior map with the scan data is beyond a preset error range, the map generating unit 250 may output an alarm. The alarm may be understood as a type of error reporting. On the other hand, when the result of comparing the prior map with the scan data is within the error range, the prior map may be corrected based on the scan data.” Here alarm = error reporting, error reporting would read on error information.)
Regarding Claim 13, it is equivalent to claim 1 except that it recites control(ing) movement of the apparatus as opposed to perform(ing) a notification. Nam et al teaches control of the movement moveable apparatus ([0179] However, when a result of comparing the prior map with the scan data is beyond a preset error range, the map generating unit 250 may output an alarm. The alarm may be understood as a type of error reporting. On the other hand, when the result of comparing the prior map with the scan data is within the error range, the prior map may be corrected based on the scan data.” When the scan data and map data agree the prior map is updated/expanded as part of SLAM which earlier in [0011]-[0013] is part of the movement path setting and recording for SLAM mapping of an area. + [0099] For example, when first scan data to n-th scan data are obtained by using the scanning sensor at the same position, the position detecting unit 150 may search for reference map data corresponding to the first piece of scan data. As a search result, there may be m pieces of reference map data corresponding to the first scan data, and the position detecting unit 150 may compare the second scan data with the m pieces of reference map data. After such a process is repeatedly performed, a position where the first scan data to n-th scan data are obtained, that is, a position of the movable marking apparatus 10, may be ultimately detected.
[0100] To detect a position of the movable marking apparatus 10 by comparing reference map data with scan data, the position detecting unit 150 may use most recently obtained scan data. “ Shows that the scanning (and subsequent path planning based on the map) is repetitive )
Claims 14-15 and movement apparatus equivalents to the information apparatus of claim 1 and 13 respectively. Nam et al is directed to a robot which obtains (generates) scan data ([0026] The disclosure may provide a movable marking system capable of determining an environment of space targeted for scanning or space targeted for work and accurately determining its position, a method of controlling a movable marking apparatus, and a computer-readable recording medium. + [0056]) as such they have the same grounds of rejection as their respective equivalents above.
Claims 16-17 are method equivalents to apparatus claims 1 and 13, they have the same grounds of rejection as their respective equivalents above.
Regarding Claims 18-19 they are non-transitory computer readable medium equivalents to claims 1 and 13 above, they have the same grounds of rejection as their respective equivalents.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL, “SM/VIO: Robust Underwater State Estimation Switching Between Model-based and Visual Inertial Odometry”, Joshi et al.
Regarding Claim 11, Nam et al does not teach recognizing a “a degree of deficiency” of the measurement data as part of the error evaluation.
Joshi et al teaches a (underwater) robotic slam system which detects if the current sensor data is deficient for SLAM mapping/operation. Joshi et al teaches Section 3 “the proposed system”, page 4, subsection “d) Health Monitoring: As described in earlier studies [1], [2], estimators often diverge or outright fail even.. The
VIO health is evaluated based on the following conditions hierarchically and considered untrustworthy based on:
… 2) The number of triangulated 3D keypoints that have feature detections in the current keyframe is less than a specified threshold, min kps. We found that min kps between 10-20 worked well.
3) The number of feature detections per quadrant, in the current keyframe, is less than a specified threshold, min kps per quadrant. To account for situations where there are high number of features detected robustly in a small area; see Fig. 3(e-f) where the bottom two quadrants contain all the features. The quadrant criterion is applied only if the total number of feature detections is less than 10 × min kps per quadrant.
4) The ratio of new keypoints to the total keypoints is more than 0.75. The newly triangulated points are those that were not observable previously.
5) The ratio of keypoints with feature detector response less than the average feature detector response in the current keyframe to the total keypoints is more than 0.85. The choice of a high threshold for the ratio is motivated by the fact that hierarchically more
important criteria have already been satisfied. Hence, this criterion has less importance overall.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Nam et al to include the feature point/scan data feature point quality monitoring to improve the detection of the SLAM system failing prior to complete failure, allowing for quicker correction/avoiding of lost/damage of the moveable apparatus. (Joshi et al teaches “is monitored by tracking the number of features detected, their spatial distribution, their quality, and their temporal continuity. By utilizing the measures described above when an estimator starts diverging, before complete failure, an alternative estimator is introduced based on sensor inputs robust to underwater environment changes. For example, there is a model-based estimator”)
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8-9 while rejected under U.S.C 112(b) are potentially allowable in regards to the prior art.
Regarding Claim 8, while rejected under 112(b) no prior art was found to teach or render obvious the evaluation of the “error of the map data” is based on “processing load status”.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8 and thus has the same potentially allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20100063648 A1; US 20180335307 A1; US 20190236797 A1; US 20200242396 A1; US 20210406559 A1; NPL, Mazuran et al, “A Statistical Measure for Map Consistency in SLAM”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669