DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on June 5, 2025, which claims priority to PCT/EP2023/083645 filed on November 30, 2023, which in turn claims priority to DE10 2022 132 204.1, filed in Germany on December 5, 2022, and thus the effective filing date is December 5, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The examiner acknowledges an information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 5, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
4. A Preliminary Amendment was filed June 5, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 7, 9, and 12-15 are independent claims. This action is made non-final.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
* Claim 1, as amended by Preliminary Amendment, recites “… the method comprises: a camera image of an environment of the capturing vehicle…,” but it appears that “capturing, by a camera of the capturing vehicle” was inadvertently deleted from the claim (a camera image, by itself, does not appear to be a proper method step). Claims 2-15 either depend upon Claim 1 or incorporate the limitations of Claim 1, thus they are objected to under the same rationale.
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.
6. Claims 1-8, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to methods; Claims 12 and 13 are directed to systems; and Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer program product, therefore, Claims 1-8, 12, 13, and 15 meet the requirements to be considered a statutory category (See MPEP § 2106.03)1.
Step 2A, prong one evaluation:
The abstract ideas (specifically mental processes) in the rejected claims are as follows2:
determining at least one feature descriptor of the camera image; determining a two-dimensional pose of the capturing vehicle in a coordinate system of the digital representation depending on the camera image (Claim 1); determining an altitude of the capturing vehicle (Claim 1); determining at least one further feature descriptor of the further camera image and an altitude of the ego-vehicle (Claim 7); determining a two-dimensional pose of the ego-vehicle in the coordinate system of the digital representation from the selected dataset (Claim 7);
generating or updating a dataset of the digital representation, which comprises the respective at least one feature descriptor, the two-dimensional pose of the capturing vehicle, and the altitude of the capturing vehicle (Claim 1, and also Claim 7);
selecting one of the datasets of the digital representation depending on the determined altitude of the ego-vehicle and the at least one further feature descriptor (Claim 7); determining a subset of the datasets of the digital representation, wherein for each dataset of the subset the altitude of the capturing vehicle matches the altitude of the ego-vehicle within a predefined tolerance range; and selecting one of the datasets from the subset of the datasets depending on the at least one further feature descriptor (Claim 8);
The recited “determining,” “generating,” and “selecting” steps are mental processes that can easily be completed in the human mind. Nothing in the claims precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a person observing captured data (i.e., images, sensor data), and describing where a vehicle is, similar to remembering where a person parked their car in a multi-story garage. Therefore, the above-noted claims recite abstract ideas.
The additional elements, found in Claims 1-7, are grouped as follows:
[capturing] a camera image of an environment of the capturing vehicle (Claim 1); capturing, by a camera of the ego vehicle, a further camera image of an environment of the ego-vehicle (Claim 7);
wherein motion data of the capturing vehicle is determined while the capturing vehicle is driven along the trajectory; and the two-dimensional pose is determined depending on the motion data using odometry (Claim 2); wherein an algorithm for visual simultaneous localization and mapping is used for determining the two-dimensional pose of the capturing vehicle depending on the camera image (Claim 3); wherein the altitude is determined using visual odometry based on the camera images captured for the plurality of time instances and/or based on further camera images captured by the camera while the capturing vehicle is driven along the trajectory (Claim 4); wherein the altitude is determined using a differential global navigation satellite system (Claim 5);
wherein the predefined spatial region is a part of a multi-level parking facility (Claim 6);
Step 2A, prong two evaluation:
The additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additional elements of groups (a)-(c) merely apply the abstract idea to a technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)); additional elements of group (a) are insignificant extra-solution activities – specifically, they are pre-solution activities of collecting/obtaining data (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
The additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Office takes Official Notice that they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), or else they are insignificant extra solution activities in the form of data collection and analysis (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), listing numerous court decisions pertaining to observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, such as the findings from Electric Power Group (holding that collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis was not significantly more than the judicial exception)).
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.
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 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.
7. Claims 1-6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feijoo et al. (hereinafter Feijoo), US 2020/0339195 A1, published on October 29, 2020.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Feijoo teaches a method for generating or updating a digital representation of a trajectory in a predefined spatial region, wherein for each of a plurality of time instances while driving a capturing vehicle along the trajectory, the method comprises:
[capturing] a camera image of an environment of the capturing vehicle (see ¶¶ 0004, 0041; see also ¶¶ 0072, 0077).
determining at least one feature descriptor of the camera image (see ¶¶ 0007, 0028, 0046, 0078).
determining a two-dimensional pose of the capturing vehicle in a coordinate system of the digital representation depending on the camera image (see ¶¶ 0041, 0071, 0076, discussing a digital map and trajectory points).
…
generating or updating a dataset of the digital representation, which comprises the at least one feature descriptor, the two-dimensional pose of the capturing vehicle, (see ¶¶ 0005-06, 0021, 0027, 0078).
Feijoo does not appear to explicitly teach or suggest determining an altitude of the capturing vehicle, and in turn does not teach or suggest that the dataset of the digital representation comprises the altitude of the capturing vehicle. However, a skilled artisan would understand that other information can be recorded and/or determined in order to allow for more accurate matching and re-localization of the vehicle, as suggested by the teachings of Shipley.
Shipley is directed towards determining vehicle location in parking structures (see Shipley, Title, Abstract, ¶ 0001). Shipley recognizes a need to locate and track vehicles in parking structures (see Shipley, ¶¶ 0002, 0026) and suggests that vehicle’s altitude or elevation can be determined in addition to determining a parking activity (see Shipley, ¶ 0019; see also ¶ 0023, discussing different sensors and ways of determining the vehicle’s altitude). Shipley further discloses that vehicle’s position in a structure can be determined using one or more inertial measurement devices and/or a SLAM algorithm (see Shipley, ¶ 0024); Shipley also suggests that the vehicle’s positioning can be based on visual markers comprising coordinates (including altitude) (see Shipley, ¶ 0030). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant Application was filed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to explicitly incorporate determining the vehicle’s altitude as suggested by Shipley along with detecting and storing of information regarding other features of the vehicle’s environment, as taught by Feijoo, in order to improve the accuracy of the digital representation of the vehicle’s trajectory and corresponding features.
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Feijoo in view of Shipley discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein motion data of the capturing vehicle is determined while the capturing vehicle is driven along the trajectory; and the two-dimensional pose is determined depending on the motion data using odometry (see Feijoo, ¶¶ 0042, 0077; see also Shipley, ¶¶ 0013, 0019, 0022).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Feijoo in view of Shipley discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein an algorithm for visual simultaneous localization and mapping is used for determining the two-dimensional pose of the capturing vehicle depending on the camera image (see Feijoo, ¶¶ 0028, 0076).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Feijoo in view of Shipley discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the altitude is determined using visual odometry based on the camera images captured for the plurality of time instances and/or based on further camera images captured by the camera while the capturing vehicle is driven along the trajectory (see Shipley, ¶ 0030, showing that vehicle’s positioning can be based on visual markers comprising coordinates (including altitude)).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Feijoo in view of Shipley discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while Feijoo in view of Shipley does not appear to explicitly illustrate wherein the altitude is determined using a differential global navigation satellite system, a skilled artisan would understand that the vehicle’s altitude in Shipley can be obtained in a variety of ways, including a dGPS (see Shipley, ¶¶ 0035, 0037 - Shipley mentions that GPS signals may be poor in multi-level parking structures, but nevertheless a skilled artisan would understand that a GPS signal can provide altitude; further note that the instant Specification, ¶ 0026 (as published in US 2026/0208760 A1) states that altitude can be determined in different known ways, and provides dGPS as a known way to determine altitude).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Feijoo in view of Shipley discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the predefined spatial region is a part of a multi-level parking facility (see Shipley, ¶ 0026).
With respect to Claims 12 and 15, these claims are directed to a system and a non-transitory computer program product, comprising similar steps and/or features as recited in Claim 1, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1, above.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
8. Independent Claims 7 and 9 (and similarly, Claims 13 and 14) would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim (Claim 1) and any intervening claims, and to overcome the Claim Objections set forth in this Office Action. In addition, Claim 7 would have to overcome the § 101 rejection as set forth in this Office Action. Dependent Claims 8 (dependent upon Claim 7) and 10-11 (dependent upon Claim 9) would also be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
The prior art of record does not appear to disclose or suggest “selecting one of the datasets of the digital representation depending on the determined altitude of the ego-vehicle and the at least one further feature descriptor” (Claim 7) or “selecting one of the plurality of reference trajectories depending on the determined altitude of the ego-vehicle and the at least one further feature descriptor” (Claim 9), in combination with other limitations recited in those claims.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
For example, the prior art of Dudar et al. (US 11,398,155 B2) describes multilevel parking structure utilization and reporting by tracking sensor data in order to determine a current level the vehicle is on. The prior art of Liu et al. (US 10,437,252 B1) describes a three-dimensional multi-layer map employing sensory data gathering and analysis, where the map entry includes feature descriptors along with a global position of the vehicle, including longitude, latitude, and height. The prior art of Platonov et al. (US 2012/0114178 A1) describes determining feature descriptors from an image and further describes determining a vehicle’s coordinates (including its height coordinate).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 Note that Claims 9-11 and 14 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they recite additional elements (i.e., “guiding the ego-vehicle, at least in part automatically, along the selected reference trajectory,” as recited in independent Claim 9 (and thus similarly recited in independent Claim 14) which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by explicitly requiring a vehicle control in response to a selected reference trajectory (compare with Claim 1 which merely generating or updating a dataset; similarly, Claim 7 additionally requires determining a two-dimensional pose based on a selected dataset).
2 Note that independent Claims 12 and 15 correspond to independent Claim 1 and independent Claim 13 corresponds to independent Claim 7; in addition, independent Claim 7 incorporates the limitations of Claim 1, thus a reference to Claim 1 should be interpreted as also referencing Claims 12 and 15, as well as Claim 7, and similarly, a reference to Claim 7 should be interpreted as also referencing Claim 13.
