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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramirez de Chanlatte et al (US Pub 20230147722).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 19, Ramirez de Chanlatte et al teaches a method for reconstructing maps (Figs. 2, 3; Paragraph 0062-0066), comprising: providing a data collection module (212, 202 in Fig. 2) to a data collection device in a target scene, so that the data collection device collects scene collection data in the target scene (Figs. 2, 3; Paragraph 0002, 0062-0066, 0071);
obtaining a scene category of the target scene (Paragraph 0002, 0071);
obtaining a map reconstruction algorithm corresponding to the scene category (Paragraph 0071, 0077); and generating a scene map corresponding to the target scene using the map reconstruction algorithm based on the scene collection data sent by the data collection device (Paragraph 0060-0066, 0071, 0109).
Regarding Claims 2, 11, Ramirez de Chanlatte et al teaches the method wherein the obtaining a scene category of the target scene comprises: providing a configuration interface configured to obtain the scene category of the target scene configured by a user (Paragraph 0002, 0071).
Regarding Claims 3, 12, Ramirez de Chanlatte et al teaches the method wherein a map type of the scene map comprises a point cloud map (Paragraph 0028, 0062).
Regarding Claims 5, 14, Ramirez de Chanlatte et al teaches the method further comprising: obtaining device information of the target device; converting the scene map into a scene map having a target parameter based on the device information of the target device; and providing the scene map having the target parameter to the target device (Paragraph 0002, 0028, 0071).
Regarding Claims 7, 16, Ramirez de Chanlatte et al teaches the method further comprising: providing a data processing module to the data collection device, wherein the data processing module is configured to preprocess data collected by the data collection device, wherein the scene collection data is obtained through preprocessing by the data processing module (Paragraph 0053, 0060, 0071).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8-9, 13, 15, 17-18, 20 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.
Conclusion
1. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
2. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
3. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights