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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,704,291).
Regarding claim 2, 10, 18, Chen et al. disclose at least one non-transitory machine readable medium comprising instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least (See col. 1, lines 44-61): generate an initial three-dimensional (3D) volumetric structure representative of a geographic area, the initial 3D volumetric data structure based on light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data associated with a scan of the geographic area (See col. 1, lines 19-29; col. 2, lines label the initial 3D volumetric data structure based on two-dimensional (2D) geographic information system (GIS) map data of the geographic area to determine a labelled 3D volumetric data structure representative of the geographic area (See col. 1, lines 19-29), the labelled 3D volumetric data structure including label data to at least identify street geometry of the geographic area; and cause transmission of the labelled 3D volumetric data structure to a navigation device of a vehicle (See col. 1, lines 44-61). Chen et al. disclose 3D models and collections of 3D models may be used in mapping, navigation, or enhanced reality applications (See col. 2, lines 39-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use 3D volumetric data structure to a navigation device of a vehicle since the models may be used in mapping and navigation to be either transmitted or received (See col. 2, lines 20-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-9, 11-17, 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to disclose wherein the 2D GIS map data includes the label data, and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to label the initial 3D volumetric data structure by: aligning the initial 3D volumetric data structure with the 2D GIS map data; and projecting the label data from the 2D GIS map data to the initial 3D volumetric data structure after alignment of the initial 3D volumetric data structure with the 2D GIS map data to determine the labelled 3D volumetric data structure.
Nor does the prior art disclose wherein the labelled 3D volumetric data structure includes labelled voxels ordered hierarchically, a first hierarchical level of the labelled 3D volumetric data structure is associated with first ones of the labelled voxels having a first level of detail, a second hierarchical level of the labelled 3D volumetric data structure is associated with second ones of the labelled voxels having a second level of detail, and the second level of detail is different from the first level of detail.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Salemann (U.S. Patent No. 8,392,354) discloses a probabilistic database can including a set of geospatially referenced records and a probability engine. The geospatially referenced records corresponding to a real-world volumetric space indexed against voxels. Each voxel can have a unique identifier in the probabilistic database. Each voxel can correspond to a volumetric unit of the real-world volumetric space. Geospatial information referenced against voxels can be internally inconsistent, which results in a naturally probabilistic storage format. The probability engine can be operable to dynamically determine a certainty value for an object of the probabilistic database. The certainty value can be a value from zero to one hundred percent, which is based upon a statistical analysis of the internally inconsistent geospatial information referenced against the voxels. The internally inconsistent geospatial information can correspond to a volumetric unit of the real-world volumetric space in which the object has a probability of residing within.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights