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 Statements (IDS) filed on 11/15/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0060625, filed on 05/08/2024.
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 2-5 and 12-15 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recites the limitation “obtain, based on loop closure, a closed curve comprising the virtual route and the movement path”. The movement path seems to correspond to the movement of the vehicle along an indoor environment. The office is unsure how a closed curve can be made from the external environment virtual route and the indoor environment movement path. It seems to only generate a path rather than a closed curve. For examination purposes, the office is interpreting that claim limitation as using loop closure to obtain an adjusted path/points on the map.
Claims 4 and 14 recites the limitation “the second point in the indoor environment as an end point of the indoor environment map”. The office is confused as how the second point of the indoor environment would be considered an end point as the vehicle seems to start from the second point of the indoor environment and travel to the second point in the external environment. For examination purposes, the office will treat the distinction between the two points as exit/entrance points.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 11 is directed to a process. Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1 and 11 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: An apparatus of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a camera;
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the apparatus to:
identify that the vehicle moves from a first point in an external environment to a first point in an indoor environment;
based on the vehicle moving to the first point in the indoor environment, obtain a point cloud for at least one object identified in an image acquired using the camera;
generate, based on the point cloud, an indoor environment map representing at least a portion of the indoor environment along a movement path of the vehicle;
map, based on an external environment map representing the external environment, the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment;
determine, based on the map of the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment, the first point in the indoor environment as a start point of the indoor environment map; and
control, based on the generated indoor environment map, operation of the vehicle.
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 “identifying, generating, mapping, and determining” steps encompass a user to make draw conclusions of the data. Specifically, identifying and determining something is something that can be done mentally. Generating a map and mapping points on the map is also something that, given pen and paper, can be done mentally. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – 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”):
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 one or more processors and a memory, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the one or more processors and memory is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the identifying, generating, mapping, and determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the one or more processors and memory is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more processors and memory.
Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitation of a camera is also recited in such a way that it is generally linking the judicial exceptions to a technological environment but does not integrate any judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In addition to that, the examiner submits that obtaining point cloud data is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a camera to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Finally, the examiner submits that while the claim has a control step, based on the specification, operations of the vehicle does not mean controlling the drive of a vehicle, but are rather defined as judicial exceptions (identifying, generating, and determining) or extra solution activities (obtaining) as seen in Figures 4 and 6.
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 one or more processors and memory 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 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 element of the apparatus, the one or more processors and memory amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of obtaining data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of obtaining the data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the camera from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional cameras. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claim 11 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1 and 11.
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, 10, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220011125-A1 to Ge et. al. (“Ge”) in view of CN-116957360-A to Zhang et. al. (“Zhang60”), further in view of KR-102521280-B1 (“KR280”) and US-20240142239-A1 (“Zhong”).
Regarding claim 1, Ge teaches one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the apparatus to (Ge Fig. 7 and [0076] “one or more processors 701, memory 702”):
identify that the vehicle moves from a first point in an external environment (Ge [0037] “starting point (such as a home location or an office location)”) to a first point in an indoor environment (Ge Fig. 1 S103 and [0039] “That is, the user can directly navigate the vehicle driven by the user to the target parking space (i.e., the selected idle parking space) using an end-to-end solution that navigates directly from the starting point to the destination (e.g., the target parking space).” And [0046] “the vehicle driven by the user can also be detected as near a parking lot (such as an entrance of the parking lot)”);
generate an indoor environment map representing at least a portion of the indoor environment along a movement path of the vehicle (Ge Fig. 4 S401 – S403);
map, based on an external environment map representing the external environment, the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment (Ge [0036]-[0037] “S102: generating an indoor-outdoor navigation route in the map application by taking the parking space as a destination address in the indoor-outdoor navigation route … a starting point (such as a home location or an office location) of a driving route of a user can be input in a second search box 13. It is also possible to input the destination (e.g., the queried parking lot at which the user wants to arrive, or the recommended parking lot can be obtained by touching and controlling the “parking lot”, and the like) of the driving route of the user in a third search box 14. In response to the starting point input operation at the second search box 13 and the destination input operation at the third search box 14, one or more indoor-outdoor navigation routes from the starting point to the destination may be generated in the map application.”);
determine, based on the map of the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment (Ge [0046] “if the user does not select a parking space and only selects a certain parking lot,”), the first point in the indoor environment as a start point of the indoor environment map (Ge [0046] “the vehicle driven by the user can also be detected as near a parking lot (such as an entrance of the parking lot) using an automatic driving system navigated in conjunction with the map application, and at such time, a currently available idle parking space is recommended, so that the user can select an idle parking space as the target parking space according to the recommendation, initiate a navigation processing to the target parking space” and [0050] “S401: triggering a navigation recommendation in response to the vehicle driven by the user approaching the indoor parking lot.”); and
control, based on the generated indoor environment map, operation of the vehicle (Ge Fig. 1-4 S103, S303, S404 and/or [0046] “it is automatically switched from an outdoor navigation mode to an indoor navigation mode to guide the user to reach the target parking space.”).
Ge does not teach generating, based on point cloud, an indoor environment map representing at least a portion of the indoor environment along a movement path of the vehicle. However, Zhang60 teaches generating, based on point cloud (Zhang60 Description “point cloud processing”), an indoor environment map (Zhang60 Description “complex environment module comprises an indoor reconstruction technology sub-module”) representing at least a portion of the indoor environment (Zhang60 Claim 8 “the collected data is processed and analyzed through the geographic information system (GIS) technology, comprising image matching, feature extraction, point cloud registration, three-dimensional modelling, ground object identification operation, so as to obtain the three-dimensional model of the target area, maps and other related information.”) along a movement path of the vehicle (Zhang60 Claim 5 “the unmanned aerial vehicle real-time plans the navigation path and the data collection strategy according to the sensed environment and task demand, and finishes the observation and reconstruction task in an optimal mode”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Ge to incorporate the teachings of Zhang60 such that the apparatus generates, based on point cloud, an indoor environment map representing at least a portion of the indoor environment along a movement path of the vehicle. Doing so would improve precise measurement methods and specific processing methods for complex environments (Zhang60 Description).
Ge as modified by Zhang60 does not teach a camera and that the apparatus is configured to obtain a point cloud for at least one object identified in an image acquired using the camera based on the vehicle moving to the first point in the indoor environment. However, KR280 teaches a camera (KR280 Abstract “3D camera”) and that the apparatus is caused to obtain a point cloud for at least one object identified in an image acquired using the camera (KR280 Description “a video image is acquired using a 3D camera that stores the position of the recognized natural object… a 3D video image (point cloud data) including not only RGB image information but also pixel depth information is obtained using a 3D depth camera (S210).”) based on the vehicle moving to the first point in the indoor environment (KR280 Abstract “it is determined that the current location of the mobile robot needs to be corrected during autonomous driving of the mobile robot”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of KR280 to Ge as modified by Zhang60 such that the apparatus comprises a camera and that the apparatus is caused to obtain a point cloud for at least one object identified in an image acquired using the camera based on the vehicle moving to the first point in the indoor environment. Doing so would achieve flexible positioning technology that does not require expensive equipment and cumbersome work and allow for storing the recognized natural object position (S200) of the present invention are steps for the SLAM-based mobile robot to create an environment map (KR280 Description).
Ge as modified by Zhang60 and KR280 does not teach that the apparatus is an apparatus of a vehicle. However, Zhong teaches that the apparatus is an apparatus of a vehicle (Zhong [0007] and Claim 9 “A device for vehicle positioning”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Zhong to Ge as modified by Zhang60 and KR280 such that the apparatus is an apparatus of a vehicle. Doing so would allow for accurate positioning of a vehicle in an indoor scenario such as a parking lot (Zhong [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Zhang60 further discloses that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the apparatus to: obtain a virtual object representing the at least one object from the point cloud (Zhang60 Description “performing three-dimensional reconstruction based on the processed point cloud data. This can be realized by the technology of structure light scanning and three-dimensional matching. The structured light scanning deduces the shape and surface texture information of the target object by projecting the structured light or texture, using the image shot by the camera and the corresponding depth image. the three-dimensional structure of the object is deduced by matching the characteristic points or image blocks of different visual angles. These methods can convert the point cloud data into a high-precision three-dimensional model.”); and generate the indoor environment map to comprise the virtual object in three dimensions (Zhang60 Claim 8 “the collected data is processed and analyzed through the geographic information system (GIS) technology, comprising image matching, feature extraction, point cloud registration, three-dimensional modelling, ground object identification operation, so as to obtain the three-dimensional model of the target area, maps and other related information.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Zhang60 to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong such that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the apparatus to: obtain a virtual object representing the at least one object from the point cloud; and generate the indoor environment map to comprise the virtual object in three dimensions. Doing so would improve precise measurement methods and specific processing methods for complex environments (Zhang60 Description).
With respect to claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 1. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 1 can clearly perform the method of claim 11. Therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 10. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 10 can clearly perform the method of claim 20. Therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Zhang60, further in view of KR280, Zhong, and US-20200217666-A1 to Zhang et. al. (“Zhang66”).
Regarding claim 2, Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ge further discloses that the apparatus is caused to generate, based on the external environment map, a virtual route comprising the first point in the external environment (Ge [0037] “a starting point (such as a home location or an office location) of a driving route of a user can be input in a second search box 13 … In response to the starting point input operation … one or more indoor-outdoor navigation routes from the starting point to the destination may be generated in the map application.”). Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong does not teach that the apparatus is configured to obtain, based on loop closure, a closed curve comprising the virtual route and the movement path; and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the apparatus to map the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment using the obtained closed curve. However, Zhang66 teaches that the apparatus is caused to obtain, based on loop closure, a closed curve comprising the virtual route and the movement path; and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the apparatus to map the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment using the obtained closed curve (Zhang66 [0164] “where a scan is undertaken in a closed loop (where the end point of the scan is the same as the starting point, at a known origin location), any discrepancy between the calculated end location and the starting location may be resolved by preferentially adjusting location estimates for certain segments of the scan to restore consistency of the start- and end-locations. Location and position information in low-confidence segments may be preferentially adjusted as compared to high-confidence segments. Thus, the SLAM system may use confidence-based error correction for closed loop scans.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Zhang66 to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong such that the apparatus is caused to obtain, based on loop closure, a closed curve comprising the virtual route and the movement path; and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the apparatus to map the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment using the obtained closed curve. Doing so would allow for automated testing to resolve model issues and offline model correction (Zhang66 [0186]).
Regarding claim 9, Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ge further discloses that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the apparatus to: identify after the vehicle moves to the first point in the indoor environment (Ge [0050] “S401: triggering a navigation recommendation in response to the vehicle driven by the user approaching the indoor parking lot”), the movement path of the vehicle in the indoor environment (Ge [0052] “S402: determining the recommended idle parking space as the parking space located in the indoor parking lot, in a case that the operation is acquiring a parking space directly based on the navigation recommendation.”); and generate the indoor environment map (Ge [0055] “S403: generating an indoor-outdoor navigation route in the map application by taking the recommended idle parking space as a destination address in the indoor-outdoor navigation route.”).
Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong does not teach a sensor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the apparatus to:
identify, based on data acquired by the sensor, the movement path of the vehicle in the environment; and
generate, based on simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) according to the movement path of the vehicle, the environment map.
However, Zhang66 teaches a sensor (Zhang66 [0061] “plurality of sensors”), wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the apparatus to:
identify, based on data acquired by the sensor, the movement path of the vehicle in the environment (Zhang66 [0061] “process the outputs from the sensors in order to estimate the change in position of the system over time and/or generate the map representation of the surrounding environment.”); and
generate, based on simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) according to the movement path of the vehicle, the environment map (Zhang66 [0064] “SLAM system can build and maintain a point cloud in real time as a user is moving through an environment, such as when walking, biking, driving, flying, and combinations thereof. A map is constructed in real time as the mapper progresses through an environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Zhang66 to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong such that the apparatus comprises a sensor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the apparatus to: identify, based on data acquired by the sensor, the movement path of the vehicle in the environment; and generate, based on simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) according to the movement path of the vehicle, the environment map. Doing so would allow for automated testing to resolve model issues and offline model correction (Zhang66 [0186]).
With respect to claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 2. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 2 can clearly perform the method of claim 12. Therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 9. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 9 can clearly perform the method of claim 19. Therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Zhang60, further in view of KR280, Zhong, Zhang66, and CN-110231040-B (“Lu”).
Regarding claim 3, Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, and Zhang66 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, and Zhang66 does not teach generating the virtual route based on a route having a shortest distance among a plurality of routes comprising the first point in the external environment. However, Lu teaches generating the virtual route based on a route having a shortest distance among a plurality of routes comprising the first point in the external environment (Lu Description “the path cost planning path based on the directed arc after increasing comprises: all traversal not currently in the congestion area, determining the vehicle comprising the node in the congestion area in the path to be completed and the vehicle destination located in the congestion area; replanning the path of the vehicle including the node in the congestion region in the path to be completed based on the shortest path algorithm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Lu to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, and Zhang66 such that the apparatus is caused to generate the virtual route based on a route having a shortest distance among a plurality of routes comprising the first point in the external environment. Doing so would allow for vehicles to complete their route the quickest.
With respect to claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 3. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 3 can clearly perform the method of claim 13. Therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Zhang60, further in view of KR280, Zhong, and US-20120197521-A1 (“Miyajima”).
Regarding claim 6, Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ge further discloses that the apparatus is caused to identify that the vehicle moves from the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment based on identifying entrance information or exit information corresponding to the first point in the indoor environment (Ge [0058] “a user is about to enter an indoor parking lot can be accurately detected according to different short-distance communication means with different characteristics (such as bands, frequencies, and the like of the short-distance communication) of Bluetooth, WIFI, GPS, UWB and the like.”). Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong does not teach that the apparatus is caused to identify that the vehicle moves from the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment based on identifying, in the image acquired using the camera, entrance information or exit information in the indoor environment by using the camera. However, Miyajima teaches that he apparatus is caused to identify that the vehicle moves from the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment based on identifying, in the image acquired using the camera, entrance information or exit information in the indoor environment by using the camera (Miyajima [0032] “The reference image includes, for example, the scene of driving in the exit lane that is the exit/entrance of the facility such as a parking lot and, based on the matching between the reference image and the recognition-use captured image, it is determined that the vehicle is exiting from the facility into the out-of-facility road.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Miyajima to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong such that the apparatus is caused to identify that the vehicle moves from the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment based on identifying, in the image acquired using the camera, entrance information or exit information in the indoor environment by using the camera. Doing so would allow for detailed guidance information to pe provided on the road to which a vehicle is about to enter after exiting and for vehicles to collect geo-location data (Miyajima [0006] and [0023]).
With respect to claim 16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 6. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 6 can clearly perform the method of claim 16. Therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Zhang60, further in view of KR280, Zhong, Miyajima, and Zhang66.
Regarding claim 4, Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong does not teach that the apparatus is caused to:
identify that the vehicle moves from a second point in the indoor environment to a second point in the external environment;
map the second point in the external environment to the second point in the indoor environment; and
determine, based on mapping of the second point in the external environment to the second point in the indoor environment, the second point in the indoor environment as an end point of the indoor environment map.
However, Miyajima teaches that the apparatus is caused to:
identify that the vehicle moves from a second point in the indoor environment to a second point in the external environment (Miyajima Fig. 1);
map the second point in the external environment to the second point in the indoor environment (Miyajima Fig. 1); and
determine, based on mapping of the second point in the external environment to the second point in the indoor environment, the second point in the indoor environment as an end point of the indoor environment map (Miyajima Fig. 1 #2 “Exit/Entrance Node and Road Link are Acquired”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Miyajima to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong such that the apparatus is caused to identify that the vehicle moves from a second point in the indoor environment to a second point in the external environment; map the second point in the external environment to the second point in the indoor environment; and determine, based on mapping of the second point in the external environment to the second point in the indoor environment, the second point in the indoor environment as an end point of the indoor environment map. Doing so would allow for detailed guidance information to pe provided on the road to which a vehicle is about to enter after exiting (Miyajima [0006]).
Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, and Miyajima does not teach that the mapping is based on loop closure using the external environment map. However, Zhang66 teaches that the mapping is based on loop closure using the external environment map (Zhang66 Abstract and [0164] “where a scan is undertaken in a closed loop (where the end point of the scan is the same as the starting point, at a known origin location), any discrepancy between the calculated end location and the starting location may be resolved by preferentially adjusting location estimates for certain segments of the scan to restore consistency of the start- and end-locations. Location and position information in low-confidence segments may be preferentially adjusted as compared to high-confidence segments. Thus, the SLAM system may use confidence-based error correction for closed loop scans.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Zhang66 to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, and Miyajima such that the mapping is based on loop closure using the external environment map. Doing so would allow for automated testing to resolve model issues and offline model correction (Zhang66 [0186]).
With respect to claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 4. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 4 can clearly perform the method of claim 14. Therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Zhang60, further in view of KR280, Zhong, Miyajima, and Zhang66, and US-20150123995-A1 to Zavodny et. al. (“Zavodny”).
Regarding claim 5, Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, Miyajima, and Zhang66 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, Miyajima, and Zhang66 does not teach that based on identifying that the vehicle moves to the second point in the external environment, temporarily stop obtaining the point cloud. However, Zavodny teaches that based on identifying that the vehicle moves to the second point in the external environment, temporarily stop obtaining the point cloud (Zavodny [0033] “CP 101 may also include a data point clouds module 111 that has substantially similar capabilities as the processing platform 103” and [0036] “the processing platform 103, the mapping/navigation application 107, or a combination thereof may utilize location-based technologies (e.g., GPS, cellular triangulation, Assistant GPS (A-GPS), etc.) to determine a travel route, a starting point, a stopping point, a movement history, or the like of a CP 101.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Zavodny to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, Miyajima, and Zhang66 such that based on identifying that the vehicle moves to the second point in the external environment, temporarily stop obtaining the point cloud. Doing so would allow for data to not be required to be done in one continuous drive (Zavodny [0023]).
With respect to claim 15, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 5. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 5 can clearly perform the method of claim 15. Therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Zhang60, further in view of KR280, Zhong, Miyajima, and CN-109707205-A to Wang et. al. (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 7, Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, and Miyajima teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, and Miyajima does not teach that the entrance information or the exit information comprises information about an external object indicating one or more of: a height limit for vehicles entering the indoor environment; or an object for temporarily blocking entry into the indoor environment. However, Wang teaches that the entrance information or the exit information comprises information about an external object indicating one or more of: a height limit for vehicles entering the indoor environment; or an object for temporarily blocking entry into the indoor environment (Wang Description “the parking lock is opened, the billboard is greater than or equal to the height the pass of the vehicles distance from the parking space ground; the cars can enter or exit the parking space, when hoisting the lowest advertising, billboard barrier at the entrance of the parking space, the vehicle cannot enter or exit the parking space.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Wang to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, Zhong, and Miyajima such that the entrance information or the exit information comprises information about an external object indicating one or more of: a height limit for vehicles entering the indoor environment; or an object for temporarily blocking entry into the indoor environment. Doing so would allow for vehicles to know if they can enter or exit the parking space based on the height of the billboard (Wang Description).
With respect to claim 17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 7. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 7 can clearly perform the method of claim 17. Therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge in view of Zhang60, further in view of KR280, Zhong, and DE-102021117253-A1 to Mirlach et. al. (“Mirlach”).
Regarding claim 8, Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong does not teach that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the apparatus to identify that the vehicle moves from the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment based on one or more of: an interruption of reception of a global positioning system (GPS) signal indicating a location of the vehicle, or a speed of the vehicle being reduced. However, Mirlach teaches that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the apparatus to identify that the vehicle moves from the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment based on one or more of: an interruption of reception of a global positioning system (GPS) signal indicating a location of the vehicle, or a speed of the vehicle being reduced (Mirlach Description “The parking garage entrance can be determined, for example, by a positioning signal that can be received outside the parking garage, in particular GPS, and which is interrupted after entering the parking garage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Mirlach to Ge as modified by Zhang60, KR280, and Zhong such that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the apparatus to identify that the vehicle moves from the first point in the external environment to the first point in the indoor environment based on one or more of: an interruption of reception of a global positioning system (GPS) signal indicating a location of the vehicle, or a speed of the vehicle being reduced. Doing so would allow for vehicles to determine the parking garage entrance and/or exit (Mirlach Description).
With respect to claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 8. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 8 can clearly perform the method of claim 18. Therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666