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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the applicant’s invention as recited in claim 1, it is noted that this limitation is interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art such that the references Suzuki and Wohlfield are analogous, combinable, and teach all recited features of the limitation, “initializing a range related to detection by a sensor mounted on a moving body in map information
including first peripheral position information that is information of a position of an object located in a periphery of the moving body, and adding second peripheral position information acquired from the sensor to the range initialized.”
Suzuki describes a vehicle with peripheral sensing systems that collect 3D scan points. Paragraphs 45-47 of the specification cites, “As shown in FIG. 5, a case where a structure 58 (for example, a shelf) is newly installed in the home parking lot P is considered, for example. In this case, when the same vehicle 1 as the vehicle 1 that has acquired the stored first situation information is newly parked at the same parking target position T of the home parking lot P where the structure 58 is installed, it is assumed that the image capturing unit 15 acquires the two-dimensional captured image indicating the peripheral situation information (second situation information). In this case, the feature points 54 of the wall surface 52 and feature points 60 of the structure 58, which are new information, are extracted from the acquired two-dimensional captured image. Therefore, correspondence between the first situation information (a feature amount of a feature point based on the wall surface 52 included in the stored map data 56) and the second situation information (a feature amount of a feature point based on the wall surface 52 and the structure 58) is not obtained (do not match each other), and the current position of the vehicle 1 cannot be specified or is in a low precision state including an error. As a result, there are inconveniences such as a position on the movement route R cannot be specified, the parking assistance cannot be continued or possibility of contacting the structure 58 increases.
[0046] Therefore, the parking assistance unit 30 of the embodiment includes the information updating unit 40 which is configured to, in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied when there is a difference between the first situation information and the second situation information, update the first situation information by the second situation information. For example, the predetermined condition is considered to be satisfied when new information which is not included in the first situation information is included in the second situation information, and a region specified by the new information does not interfere with a region where the movement route R is located.
[0047] The new information extracting unit 40a includes, for example, at least one of an object boundary line extracting unit 40a1 and a difference extracting unit 40a2. As shown in FIG. 6, the object boundary line extracting unit 40a1 extracts an object boundary line 62 indicating a boundary between an object region, which is recognized as a region where a three-dimensional object (for example, the wall surface 52 or the feature point 54) is present on the road surface included in the first situation information (captured image) and the second situation information (captured image), and the road surface.”. Therefore Wohlfield teaches “including first peripheral position information that is information of a position of an object located in a periphery of the moving body, and adding second peripheral position information acquired from the sensor to the range initialized.”
Wohlfield describes a system of sensing an environment and collecting 3D scan points. Paragraph 23 of the specification cites, “The method further includes identifying using a machine learning model, a subset of pixels in the 2D image, the subset of pixels represents a reflective surface. The method further includes for each pixel in the subset of pixels, determining one or more corresponding 3D scan points in the point cloud. The method further includes creating an updated point cloud in the frame by removal of the one or more corresponding 3D scan points from the point cloud.” Therefore Suzuki teaches “initializing a range related to detection by a sensor mounted on a moving body in map information.”
All of the above references are analogous in the field of dealing with 3D scan points. Furthermore, when these references are taken together in combination, the above described feature is taught. One of ordinary skill would recognize that the teaching of Wohlfield regarding removing the points determined to be a reflection rather than an object itself in a 3D point scan could be broadly interpreted as a form of data initialization. From there, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it analogous and applicable to the environment of a vehicle that utilizes point scans so that for each individual set of peripheral position information, an initialization process can occur where the scanned data is cleaned of points that correspond to reflections. This does not conflict from Suzuki’s ability to later add back points that Suzuki determines to be additional point sensor data that represents a change in a known environment, as the systems of both Suzuki and Wohlfield utilize object recognition techniques to determine what is a change in an environment and what is a reflection. If anything, Wohlfield would improve Suzuki’s ability to detect new objects, where for both the first and second data collection, reflection points are removed. The motivations for combination of these references are as described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
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 taught 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20210094536) (hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Wohlfield et al. (US 20230153967) (hereinafter Wohlfield).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches An information processing device comprising a processor configured to perform operations comprising:
including first peripheral position information that is information of a position of an object located in a periphery of the moving body, and adding second peripheral position information acquired from the sensor to the range initialized (see Suzuki figures 1 and 4-7 and paragraphs 4, 18-21, 32-34, 37, 41, 45-46, 51, and 66-67 regarding vehicle with plurality of cameras and radars around a side and rear exterior of vehicle where a range of detection information in the form of first mapped feature points around the vehicle is initialized, then later, when something in the known feature point location is changed, the mapped feature points are updated with the new information about the peripheral surroundings).
However, Suzuki does not explicitly teach a map information generation as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Wohlfield, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches initializing a range related to detection by a sensor mounted on a moving body in map information (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84 regarding map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a range of information in a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image- in combination with Suzuki, the map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image may be incorporated into the feature map processing and updating of Suzuki).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Suzuki to include the teaching of Wohlfield so that in combination with Suzuki, the map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image may be incorporated into the feature map processing and updating of Suzuki.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the information handling efficiency of a point cloud computing system (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches wherein the operations further comprise: deleting, as initialization of the range, peripheral position information included in the range in the first peripheral position information from the map information (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84 regarding map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image- in combination with Suzuki, the map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image may be incorporated into the feature map processing and updating of Suzuki).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the information handling efficiency of a point cloud computing system (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches further the operations further comprise: deforming, based on the map information, a projection surface on which a photographed image of the periphery of the moving body is projected (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84 regarding map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image- in combination with Suzuki, the map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image may be incorporated into the feature map processing and updating of Suzuki).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the information handling efficiency of a point cloud computing system (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches wherein the deforming comprises deforming the projection surface based on the first peripheral position information and the second peripheral position information that are not initialized in the map information (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84 regarding map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image- in combination with Suzuki, the map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image may be incorporated into the feature map processing and updating of Suzuki and iteratively incorporated so that it deforms first and second information).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the information handling efficiency of a point cloud computing system (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches wherein the sensor includes a plurality of sensors mounted on the moving body (see Suzuki figures 1 and 4-7 and paragraphs 4, 18-21, 32-34, 37, 41, 45-46, 51, and 66-67 regarding vehicle with plurality of cameras and radars around a side and rear exterior of vehicle where a range of detection information in the form of first mapped feature points around the vehicle is initialized, then later, when something in the known feature point location is changed, the mapped feature points are updated with the new information about the peripheral surroundings).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches wherein the plurality of sensors are arranged in an array on an exterior of the moving body (see Suzuki figures 1 and 4-7 and paragraphs 4, 18-21, 32-34, 37, 41, 45-46, 51, and 66-67 regarding vehicle with plurality array of cameras and radars around a side and rear exterior of vehicle where a range of detection information in the form of first mapped feature points around the vehicle is initialized, then later, when something in the known feature point location is changed, the mapped feature points are updated with the new information about the peripheral surroundings).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches wherein the sensor is a distance sensor mounted on a rear of the moving body, and the first peripheral position information is acquired from the distance sensor (see Suzuki figures 1 and 4-7 and paragraphs 4, 18-21, 32-34, 37, 41, 45-46, 51, and 66-67 regarding vehicle with plurality of cameras and radars around a side and rear exterior of vehicle where a range of detection information in the form of first mapped feature points around the vehicle is initialized, then later, when something in the known feature point location is changed, the mapped feature points are updated with the new information about the peripheral surroundings).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches wherein the sensor is further arranged on a side of the moving body as the distance sensor (see Suzuki figures 1 and 4-7 and paragraphs 4, 18-21, 32-34, 37, 41, 45-46, 51, and 66-67 regarding vehicle with plurality of cameras and radars around a side and rear exterior of vehicle where a range of detection information in the form of first mapped feature points around the vehicle is initialized, then later, when something in the known feature point location is changed, the mapped feature points are updated with the new information about the peripheral surroundings).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches wherein the range corresponds to information of the periphery of the moving body with reference to a position of the moving body (see Suzuki figures 1 and 4-7 and paragraphs 4, 18-21, 32-34, 37, 41, 45-46, 51, and 66-67 regarding vehicle with plurality of cameras and radars around a vehicle where a range of detection information in the form of first mapped feature points around the vehicle is initialized, with respect to the position of the moving body, then later, when something in the known feature point location is changed, the mapped feature points are updated with the new information about the peripheral surroundings).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Suzuki and Wohlfield teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining peripheral position information to be deleted as initialization, based on information of the range and information of a relative movement amount of the moving body with respect to an origin in the map information (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84 regarding map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image- in combination with Suzuki, the map generation initialization, deletion of first information upon updating a point cloud, and distortion projection, based on map information, of a projection surface corresponding to a photographed image may be incorporated into the feature map processing and updating of Suzuki).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the information handling efficiency of a point cloud computing system (see Wohlfield paragraphs 23, 49, and 84).
Independent claim(s) 11 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit in method form, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a non-transitory computer readable medium as taught by Suzuki paragraph 32, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Dependent claim(s) 13-20 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 2-9, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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 DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights