DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Most of the rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. With respect to Claims 9, 10, 100, 101, 107, and 108, while significantly improved, issues of antecedent basis which highlight limitations which appear to be missing from the claims remain. See the updated rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. In particular, Applicant’s amendment deleting the recitation of “for use in navigating along the road segment, the navigating comprising” which was not a positively recited limitation, and amendment thereof to a positively recited limitation of “wherein the one or more autonomous vehicles are configured to navigate along the road segment by …”.
In the interest of clarity, Examiner notes that Applicant’s apparent implication on Page 22 of the Remarks, in the paragraph beginning “Moreover …”, that the Office Action did not reject features of the claim is not supported in said Office Action, all limitations having been rejected and thus no support for “the conclusion that these features are not conventional” was provided therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
None of Applicant’s arguments appear to specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, rather than simply reciting the language of the claims believed to be distinguished from the reference. They do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which Applicant thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited. They do not show how the amendments or pre-existing limitations avoid the references. The arguments appear to merely recite the limitations, recite portions of the reference, sometimes recite a portion of Applicant’s specification, and conclude by stating the limitation(s) is/(are) therefore not disclosed.
As none of the recitations of the reference clearly contradict the recited limitations such that any argument being made is self-evident, lack of further explanation is wholly insufficient and leaves any arguments Applicant is attempting to make unstated. Argument that a limitation is not taught without clear and explicit explanation of Applicant’s logic, reasoning, and/or support for the argument is not sufficiently specific. Reference to Applicant’s specification, wherein said recitations do not disclose a special definition for any of the terms of the limitation, are wholly insufficient if Applicant is arguing a particular meaning to the terms (though again, Applicant does not clearly state what their specific arguments are). MPEP 2111 relates. Examiner notes that no special definitions were found to be pointed out. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As a specific and illustrative example, Page 25 of Applicant’s Remarks states:
“Moreover, the Office Action cited Rappel-Kroyzer [0073] for the claimed "drive identifier" limitation. See Office Action at 14. However, [0073] of Rappel-Kroyzer discloses privacy-level settings and lists examples such as "a vehicle identification number (VIN), a driver/owner name" for a "low privacy level," different sets of identifying information for "intermediate" and "high" privacy levels, and states that "[a] user of vehicle 200 may choose to opt into or out of using the privacy settings." See Rappel-Kroyzer, [0073]. Accordingly, Rappel-Kroyzer does not disclose the above-identified determining limitations of amended claim 1 for this independent reason as well.”
First, as noted in the preceding Office Action, as well as this Office Action, and which appears wholly unaddressed by Applicant in these Remarks, “terms of “drive information”, “drive identifier”, “landmark”, “landmark detection information” etc. are not claimed in further detail and hold especially broad meaning under their plain and ordinary meaning”. The plain meaning of the term “drive identifier” is simply anything that might be associated with identifying a “drive” which is some instance of driving. It is wholly unclear how the VIN or driver/owner name of the vehicle or driver of a particular drive does not provide identifying information for a set of data which may be considered a drive.
Second, and furthermore, even if limitations were improperly imported from Applicant’s specification, this appears to directly contradict Applicant’s disclosure. See e.g. [0385] “A vehicle identifier may include a unique identifier assigned to a particular vehicle for purposes of identifying that vehicle such as a combination of letters and numbers constituting a vehicle identification number (or VTN number)” (emphasis added) which explicitly recites the meaning of the term as inclusive of a VIN.
Third, and finally, the portion of [0073] provided in the Office Action and which Applicant does not appear to address more broadly recites “information sufficient to uniquely identify a specific vehicle, owner/driver, and or a portion or entirely of a route traveled by the vehicle” which would appear to read on any potential interpretation or generally disclosed meaning of the term “drive identifier”.
Consequently, see the updated rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to actually be directed towards the limitations of the claims rejected with respect to Rappel-Kroyzer and are effectively directed towards claims and limitations not previously rejected under 35 USC § 103 with respect to Wang. In other words, these arguments appear to be relevant not to the existing rejections, but an attempt to pre-empt any further combination and rejection that may be made in this response. As Rappel-Kroyzer has been determined as demonstrated above to still disclose said limitations, these arguments are moot. Furthermore, these arguments are made with respect to the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections (which were not made) are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 9, 10, 100, 101, 107, and 108 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 Claims 9, 10, 100, 101, 107, and 108, the claims recite the following (or equivalent) limitations:
determining that only one actual landmark is positioned along the road segment within a particular landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters when no two drive identifiers of the distribution of drive identifiers for the particular landmark cluster are identical (Claim 9)
and
determining that more than one actual landmark is positioned along the road segment within a particular landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters when at least two drive identifiers of the distribution of drive identifiers for the particular landmark cluster are identical (Claim 10)
There are clear issues of insufficient antecedent basis within these claims.
First, the claims recite the limitation “the road segment within a particular landmark cluster”. The independent claims recite the limitation or equivalent of “each of the at least two landmark clusters being representative of a potential real world location of an actual landmark positioned along the road segment” (Claim 1). Furthermore, the support for this disclosure is [0427] – [0429] and the associated figures, does not disclose plural road segments, but a plurality of landmark clusters for a road segment. Thus, there has not previously been, nor is there disclosed, a plurality of road segments, but instead there is one road segment for which there may be a plurality of associated landmark clusters. The claim does not previously recite a particular “road segment within” any landmark cluster. The claims previously recite “at least two landmark clusters being representative of a potential real world location of an actual landmark positioned along the road segment” (Claim 1) or equivalent. The disclosure makes it clear, and the claims are presently constructed, as a road segment referring to the whole segment along which a plurality of landmark clusters and drive identifier distributions are mapped/related.
Second, the claims recite the limitation “two drive identifiers of the distribution of the drive identifiers for the particular landmark cluster” in the claims. The independent claims originally recite “determining … a distribution of drive identifiers relative to the at least two landmark clusters”. The distribution of drive identifiers is specifically not previously recited as being “for”, of, etc. one or more of the two landmark clusters but merely a distribution relative to the at least two landmark clusters.
Thus, it appears based on the disclosure of [0427] – [0429] and this phrasing that a critical element is missing. There is no requirement for more than one distribution of drive identifiers or that one distribution, whether there be one each for each cluster or one for all clusters, be specifically “for”, of, or similar a given cluster as presently constructed in the claims. Either the independent claim or dependent claim needs to more particularly recite such a limitation. Furthermore, the support for these limitations of [0428] – [0429] make it clear that there is a unique distribution of drive identifiers for/corresponding to/etc. each cluster rather than one/a singular distribution for all clusters.
In other words, the disclosure does not appear to support a single distribution of drive identifiers for a plurality of clusters and to require one distribution of drive identifiers for each cluster if it is with respect to any distribution of drive identifiers, and therefore the correction of this limitation requires either deletion of the limitation or additional limitation(s).
Examiner furthermore notes that the claims recite the landmark clusters as being “representative of a potential real world location of an actual landmark”, not of the landmarks themselves.
Thus, in the interest of compact prosecution wherein no additional limitations are provided, the limitations are instead interpreted as reading:
determining that a particular landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters is representative of the potential real world location of only one actual landmark when no two drive identifiers are identical (Claim 9)
and
determining that a particular landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters is representative of the potential real world location of more than one actual landmark when at least two drive identifiers are identical (Claim 10)
The possibly intended versions but which require additional limitations altering the scope of the claims and thus are not interpreted as reading as such are as follows:
wherein each landmark cluster contains a portion of the road segment;
wherein determining a distribution of drive identifiers comprises determining a separate distribution of drive identifiers for each landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters;
wherein the method further comprises:
determining that only one actual landmark is positioned along the portion of the road segment within a particular landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters when no two drive identifiers of the distribution of drive identifiers for the particular landmark cluster are identical. (Claim 9)
and
wherein each landmark cluster contains a portion of the road segment;
wherein determining a distribution of drive identifiers comprises determining a separate distribution of drive identifiers for each landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters;
wherein the method further comprises:
determining that more than one actual landmark is positioned along the portion of the road segment within a particular landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters when at least two drive identifiers of the distribution of drive identifiers for the particular landmark cluster are identical. (Claim 10)
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.
(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.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 21, 97 – 98, 100 – 105, and 107 – 110 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rappel-Kroyzer et al. (US 20210341303 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
A method for determining one or more harvested landmarks, the method comprising:
obtaining, from each of a plurality of vehicles traversing or having traversed a road segment (See at least [0073] “system 100 may upload data and include information sufficient to uniquely identify a specific vehicle, owner/driver, and/or a portion or entirely of a route traveled by the vehicle”), drive information captured during a respective drive of a respective vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (See at least [0006] “a method for aggregating informational reports received from a plurality of vehicles”), the drive information obtained from each of the plurality of vehicles comprising a drive identifier (See again at least [0073] above) and landmark detection information corresponding to one or more landmark detections (See at least [0167] “As will be discussed in further detail below, road features (e.g., landmarks along a road segment) may be stored as small data objects that may represent a road feature in relatively few bytes, while at the same time providing sufficient information for recognizing and using such a feature for navigation” and/or 1410 of Figure 14 and associated description in at least [0220].
Examiner furthermore notes that terms of “drive information”, “drive identifier”, “landmark”, “landmark detection information” etc. are not claimed in further detail and hold especially broad meaning under their plain and ordinary meaning);
aggregating the landmark detection information included in the obtained drive information from the plurality of vehicles (See at least [0205] “Clustering or cluster analysis enables the aggregation of such informational reports into related groupings” and/or [0223] “at step 1450, process 1400 may include aggregating the informational vehicle report of the first cell with the information cluster associated with the second cell to provide an aggregated cluster” and [0200] – [0201] which disclose in detail what an information report may comprise), and based on the aggregated landmark detection information, identifying at least two landmark clusters, each of the at least two landmark clusters being representative of a potential real world location of an actual landmark positioned along the road segment (See at least [0207] “For example, informational reports about a detected pothole in one location or region may be grouped together in a first cluster, while informational reports about a detected pothole in a different location or region may be grouped together in a second cluster different from the first cluster”);
determining, based on the drive identifier associated with the drive information obtained from each of the plurality of vehicles, a distribution of drive identifiers relative to the at least two landmark clusters (The nature of this limitation is not claimed with any particularity. See again above recitations wherein informational reports clustered and/or aggregated and include a plurality of drive identifiers, thus creating a “distribution” thereof and which may relate to clusters for different landmarks (one example given being the pothole));
determining, based on the distribution of drive identifiers, a location identifier for one or more actual landmarks positioned along the road segment (The nature of this limitation is not claimed with any particularity. See at least [0223] “generating the first event report for the event based on information associated with the first cluster may include averaging the location in the environment of the host vehicle with a location associated with the second cell”.
For example, the aggregation results in an averaged location which is tied to one or more identifiers and corresponds to one or more landmarks);
storing the location identifier for the one or more actual landmarks in a map (The nature of “map” is not claimed with any particularity and is thus taught variously.
See at least event report itself, for example in relation to 1480 of Figure 14. The English definition of “map” is merely “a representation usually on a flat surface of the whole or a part of an area” wherein the “usually on a flat surface” is not a strict requirement or even just “something that represents with a clarity suggestive of a map” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 3/25/2026).
Additionally, and alternatively, see at least navigational report in relation to [0229] – [0232].
Finally, additionally, and alternatively, see at least sparse map as discussed with respect to other items such as the event report in [0216] “FIGS. 13A-13G illustrate example clustering operations that may be performed consistent with the disclosed embodiments … Path 1301 may represent a target trajectory in a sparse map, as described above. As shown, cluster 1310 may include three cells associated with reported events and cluster 1320 may include two cells associated with reported events. As additional informational reports are received, clusters 1310 and 1320 may be updated. For example, as shown in FIG. 13B, additional event reports may be received for locations within cells 1321 and 1322 (as indicated by the light shading in those cells) and Figure 13G); and
distributing the map to one or more autonomous vehicles (See at least [0203] in general, and for a particular portion “it may be both impractical and inefficient to broadcast to the fleet repetitive reports related to the same event” with respect to reports and at least [0004] “The disclosed systems may also provide for constructing and navigating with a crowdsourced sparse map” and if not clear from “crowdsourced” alone, further see [0162] “the disclosed systems and methods may distribute a sparse map”), wherein the one or more autonomous vehicles are configured to navigate along the road segment by determining at least one navigational response based on the location identifier for the one or more actual landmarks (See again [0004] above. See also at least [0204], in particular “As a result, aggregated navigational reports may enable more robust, informed decision making by navigational systems of an autonomous vehicles” and [0229] – [0232] in particular [0029] “transmitting the event report to the plurality of host vehicles as a navigational report upon which the plurality of vehicles may use in determining navigational actions” (emphasis added)) and wherein the one or more autonomous vehicles are configured to implement the at least one navigational response (See again [0004] above. See also at least [0004] “Embodiments consistent with the present disclosure provide systems and methods for autonomous vehicle navigation” and [0231] “generating navigational reports based on the aggregated clusters may enable a host vehicle to make navigational decisions based on richer information than would be otherwise available solely based on the sensors of the host vehicle alone”).
In general, furthermore see the relationship between information, reports, and maps disclosed in [0195] which relates to many of the limitations “the information relating to semi-permanent or transient roadway conditions or features may be used to generate reports to one or more vehicles that may be used for navigation. These reports may be included with or may be provided separate from sparse maps delivered to one or more vehicles for navigation. In other embodiments, instead of being separate, the reports maybe in the form of a tag, a flag, or other information within the sparse maps indicating the semi-permanent or transient roadway condition”.
Regarding Claim 2, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least two landmark clusters are identified based on one or more regions identified in the aggregated landmark detection information (See at least [0207] “a particular region in the real world may be subdivided into sub-regions referred to as cells”).
Regarding Claim 3, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more regions are determined based on map information (Appears inherent inasmuch as the term “map information” is not further disclosed. See for example [0207] “a particular region in the real world may be subdivided into sub-regions referred to as cells” or [0207] “The disclosed systems and methods may establish a cell size for each cell. In some embodiments, a cell may have a size in meters (e.g., two square meters, five square meters, ten square meters, fifty square meters, one hundred square meters, etc.) that corresponds to a real-world location having the specified size” or [0207] “As another example, portions of roadways that are associated with higher traffic congestion may have smaller cell sizes as opposed to less busy portions”, etc.).
Regarding Claim 4, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least two landmark clusters are identified based on topology information included in the aggregated landmark detection information (The term “topology” information is not particularly defined, and furthermore “topology” often is used in the field of robotics to simply refer to 3D dimensional data in some form.
See at least [0111] “The second processing device may receive images from main camera and perform vision processing to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, lane marks, traffic signs, traffic lights, and other road objects. Additionally, the second processing device may calculate a camera displacement and, based on the displacement, calculate a disparity of pixels between successive images and create a 3D reconstruction of the scene (e.g., a structure from motion). The second processing device may send the structure from motion based 3D reconstruction to the first processing device to be combined with the stereo 3D images”, and/or [0124] “For example, processing unit 110 may estimate camera motion between consecutive image frames and calculate the disparities in pixels between the frames to construct a 3D-map of the road. Processing unit 110 may then use the 3D-map to detect the road surface, as well as hazards existing above the road surface”, and/or [0148] “At step 620, processing unit 110 may execute stereo image analysis module 404 to perform stereo image analysis of the first and second plurality of images to create a 3D map of the road in front of the vehicle and detect features within the images, such as lane markings, vehicles, pedestrians, road signs, highway exit ramps, traffic lights, road hazards, and the like”).
Regarding Claim 5, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the topology information is determined based on map information (See again above. The terms of “map information” and “topology information” are not claimed with any particularity).
Regarding Claim 6, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least two landmark clusters are identified based on orientation information included in the aggregated landmark detection information (The term “orientation information” is not claimed with any particularity or the nature of the basis of “based on”. See again for example [0111], [0124], and [0144] as in Claim 4. 3D information will inherently hold some form of orientation information).
Regarding Claim 8, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least two landmark clusters are identified based on one or more regions identified in the aggregated landmark detection information (See at least [0207] “a particular region in the real world may be subdivided into sub-regions referred to as cells”) in which an actual landmark of the one or more actual landmarks comprises features of different sizes (The exact nature of “features” or “different sizes” is not claimed with particularity and is thus especially broad to the point that the feature is either trivial or iniherent. Furthermore, this claim appears to be purely circumstantial and non-limiting under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The landmark comprising features of different sizes does not appear to have any influence or bearing on the basis of the identification.
A cell of the real world readily includes landmarks, wherein any given object may be measured in different ways such that a different “size” is established.
See also at least [0185] “A sparse map may also include representations of other road-related features associated with geographic region 911. For example, a sparse map may also include representations of one or more landmarks identified in geographic region 911. Such landmarks may include a first landmark 950 associated with stop line 932, a second landmark 952 associated with stop sign 934, a third landmark associated with speed limit sign 954, and a fourth landmark 956 associated with hazard sign 938. Such landmarks may be used, for example, to assist an autonomous vehicle in determining its current location relative to any of the shown target trajectories, such that the vehicle may adjust its heading to match a direction of the target trajectory at the determined location”.
All of these examples given include object which have different sizes. For a stop sign, it has an individual side and a length between two sides which are different. For a stop line, the it is a line not a square or block).
Regarding Claim 9, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining that only one actual landmark is positioned along the road segment within a particular landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters when no two drive identifiers of the distribution of drive identifiers for the particular landmark cluster are identical
(The “when” clause is a part of a “comprising” claim, not a “consisting” claim, and thus is not presumed to be “only when” or “always when” or otherwise exclusive of all the other ways that the determination may be made, or of other determinations being made based on the same condition, etc. Furthermore, the terms are still open to extremely broad interpretation, and thus “identical” may only require arbitrary portions, etc. of the prior art equivalents. Thus, the condition appears to effectively always met by any prior art reading on the claim from which it depends as the conditions are effectively non-exclusive ranges covered by a broader range.
For example, as demonstrated above, a given cluster may comprise a number of cells which may each have any number of reports or other drive identifier information associated therewith. Furthermore, a given cell may or may not have one or more actual landmarks as reported and updated based on the incoming information. Thus, under the infinite ranges of the prior art which covers this non-exclusive range, and breadth of the claim terms the limitations appear disclosed).
Regarding Claim 10, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining that more than one actual landmark is positioned along the road segment within a particular landmark cluster of the at least two landmark clusters when at least two drive identifiers of the distribution of drive identifiers for the particular landmark cluster are identical (The “when” clause is a part of a “comprising” claim, not a “consisting” claim, and thus is not presumed to be “only when” or “always when” or otherwise exclusive of all the other ways that the determination may be made, or of other determinations being made based on the same condition, etc. Furthermore, the terms are still open to extremely broad interpretation, and thus “identical” may only require arbitrary portions, etc. of the prior art equivalents. Thus, the condition appears to effectively always met by any prior art reading on the claim from which it depends as the conditions are effectively non-exclusive ranges covered by a broader range.
For example, as demonstrated above, a given cluster may comprise a number of cells which may each have any number of reports or other drive identifier information associated therewith. Furthermore, a given cell may or may not have one or more actual landmarks as reported and updated based on the incoming information. Thus, under the infinite ranges of the prior art which covers this non-exclusive range, and breadth of the claim terms the limitations appear disclosed).
Regarding Claim 11, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more actual landmarks include at least a traffic sign (See at least [0185] “landmarks may include a first landmark 950 … a second landmark 952 associated with stop sign 934, a third landmark associated with speed limit sign 954, and a fourth landmark 956 associated with hazard sign 938), a traffic light (See at least “a detected traffic light” of [0154]), a road marking (See at least [0185] “landmarks may include a first landmark 950 associated with stop line 932” and “lane markings” of [0154]), a pole (See at least [0185] “landmarks may include … a second landmark 952 associated with stop sign 934, a third landmark associated with speed limit sign 954, and a fourth landmark 956 associated with hazard sign 938”. Examiner notes that it is common knowledge that signs and other stationary traffic indicating devices are typically mounted to poles), or a construction indicator (See at least [0185] “landmarks may include … a third landmark associated with speed limit sign 954, and a fourth landmark 956 associated with hazard sign 938”. Examiner notes that it is common knowledge that speed limit signs and hazard signs are used in construction zones. See also [0195] “the information collected from vehicles traversing a roadway may include transient road features such as construction zones”).
Regarding Claim 12, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein aggregating the landmark detection information included in the obtained drive information from the plurality of vehicles is based on one or more drivable paths of a road segment (The nature of “based on” is not claimed with any particularity. The claim may be only “one” drivable path. Thus this limitation appears inherent to the existing limitation of “traversing or having traversed a road segment” of the independent claims.
As needed alternatively also see at least “vehicle path” of [0139], “road path” of [0179], and path 1301 found in Figures 13A – 13G).
Regarding Claim 13, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one navigational response includes at least one of steering, braking, or accelerating the one or more autonomous vehicles (Examiner first notes that this is not a positively recited limitation. See discussion with respect to navigational response limitation in the independent claim.
In the interest of compact prosecution, see at least [0029] “transmitting the event report to the plurality of host vehicles as a navigational report upon which the plurality of vehicles may use in determining navigational actions” and [0104] “For example, when vehicle 200 navigates without human intervention, system 100 may automatically control the braking, acceleration, and/or steering of vehicle 200 (e.g., by sending control signals to one or more of throttling system 220, braking system 230, and steering system 240”. See also as needed [0103] discussing the interchangeability of functions and structures, though Examiner believes it already indicated explicitly by [0029] that navigational actions include the claimed actions).
Regarding Claim 14, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the landmark detection information comprises one or more three-dimensional real-world coordinates corresponding to a surface of a landmark of the one or more landmarks (See at least [0110] “create a 3D reconstruction of the environment of vehicle 200. The first processing device may then combine the 3D reconstruction with 3D map data or with 3D information calculated based on information from another camera”).
Regarding Claim 15, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the one or more three-dimensional real-world coordinates determine one or more edges of the surface of the landmark (See at least [0110] “create a 3D reconstruction of the environment of vehicle 200. The first processing device may then combine the 3D reconstruction with 3D map data or with 3D information calculated based on information from another camera”).
Regarding Claim 16, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the landmark detection information comprises a type identifier identifying a type of a corresponding landmark (See at least [0168] – [0170]. See in particular at least [0168] “When, for example, a sign or even a particular type of a sign is locally unique (e.g., when there is no other sign or no other sign of the same type) in a given area, the sparse map may use data indicating a type of a landmark (a sign or a specific type of sign), and during navigation (e.g., autonomous navigation) when a camera onboard an autonomous vehicle captures an image of the area including a sign (or of a specific type of sign), the processor may process the image, detect the sign (if indeed present in the image), classify the image as a sign (or as a specific type of sign), and correlate the location of the image with the location of the sign as stored in the sparse map”).
Regarding Claim 17, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the landmark detection information comprises sensor data obtained by at least one sensor of one or more of the plurality of vehicles (See at least [0167] “This lean representation of landmarks (and other road features) may take advantage of the sensors and processors included onboard such vehicles that are configured to detect, identify, and/or classify certain road features” and [0231] “As previously discussed, the disclosed systems and methods for receiving crowd sourced road event/condition information, aggregating the received information into related event/condition clusters, and generating navigational reports based on the aggregated clusters may enable a host vehicle to make navigational decisions based on richer information than would be otherwise available solely based on the sensors of the host vehicle alone”).
Regarding Claim 18, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein the at least one sensor includes a camera (See at least camera 122, 124, 126, and Figure 1), a radar (See at least [0114] “one more sensors (e.g., radar”), or a lidar (See at least [0114] “one more sensors (e.g., … lidar”).
Regarding Claim 19, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein the sensor data includes at least one of images (See at least camera 122, 124, 126, and Figure 1), radar data (See at least [0114] “one more sensors (e.g., radar”), or lidar data (See at least [0114] “one more sensors (e.g., … lidar”).
Regarding Claims 97 – 98, 100 – 105, and 107 – 110, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 21 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 21 above. These claims only effectively recite practice of the method using generic computer components, or storage of the method as instructions on and executed by generic computer components. Beyond being inherent common knowledge, see at least [0233] – [0235] as needed wherein such components are disclosed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 99, and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappel-Kroyzer et al. further in view of Wang et al. (Wang, Qing, et al. "Object tracking via partial least squares analysis." IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 21.10 (2012): 4454-4465.).
Regarding Claim 7, Rappel-Kroyzer teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Rappel-Kroyzer does not explicitly teach, but in combination with Wang teaches:
wherein the at least two landmark clusters are identified based on a partial least squares (PLS) analysis of the aggregated landmark detection information (See at least Page 1, Abstract, “In this paper, object tracking is posed as a binary classification problem in which the correlation of object appearance and class labels from foreground and background is modeled by partial least squares (PLS) analysis, for generating a low-dimensional discriminative feature subspace. As object appearance is temporally correlated and likely to repeat over time, we learn and adapt multiple appearance models with PLS analysis for robust tracking”
Examiner furthermore notes that the nature of “based on a PLS analysis of the aggregated landmark detection information” is not claimed with any particularity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize PLS analysis in the data analysis of Rappel-Kroyzer with a reasonable expectation of success. As shown in at least Figures 6 and 17, besides its general use in object tracking, it is of particular use in vehicle/traffic related contexts as well, especially as motion is relative between two bodies (i.e. a static object will appear to move if the observer is moving). PLS analysis would therefore facilitate the identification of datapoints of interest across a data stream.
Regarding Claims 99 and 106, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claim 7 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claim 7 above. These claims only effectively recite practice of the method using generic computer components, or storage of the method as instructions on and executed by generic computer components. Beyond being inherent common knowledge, see at least [0233] – [0235] of Rappel-Kroyzer as needed wherein such components are disclosed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akbarzadeh et al. (US 20220341750 A1) which discloses “crowdsource data generation using many vehicles and many drives” ([0029]) and identification of road features such as “a traffic sign by a first deployed neural network” ([0155]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
