CTNF 19/197,084 CTNF 86786 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because Page 1 of the drawings features 3 distinct Figures with only Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 designations . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-22-02 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters " 5 " and " 7 " have both been used to designate either a connection region and/or an overlap region in Fig. 2-4 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 1 and 8-11 the claimed subject matter directed towards the steps (verifying and approving), specific regions (connection and overlap), and the map extension/extension region, there is insufficient written description within the instant disclosure to establish possession of the claimed invention. Where the claims recite a verification and approval process, these steps pertain to considerations of various regions as the extension, which are depicted in the Figures and described in the specification at a high level; however, the specification fails to disclose how these regions are ascertained and boundaries for each region are established so that clear lines of demarcation can be established between each region. For example, the map extension is defined as comprising at least an extension region and an overlap region and the digital map comprises a connection region. The verification of the map extension is accomplished with the aid of the connection and overlap regions. While the relationships are disclosed, the specification lacks sufficient information as to how each of these regions’ boundaries are separated within the map itself. There are no details which disclose the creation parameters or boundaries of each region to show where the limits of each boundary exist. Position estimation is used as the data set for the overlap region; however, aside from the manner of data collection being described, little details are given to show the boundaries which would be needed to define such a region. As such, there is no way to determine where a particular region begins or ends or where each region is separated from another or includes another region. Because the region makeup is not set forth, the regional boundary information and details needed to establish a verification and approval process are not disclosed. As such, the steps do not have adequate written description to show possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent upon the rejected claims above and inheriting their deficiencies. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11 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. Specifically, Applicant claims a “connection region” encompassing an “overlap region” and an “extension region;” however, the specification does not provide sufficient supporting details as to how the boundaries of these regions are determined or identified and established. The extension areas appear to be arbitrarily assigned without discussion as to the parameters of selection of the associated area. The only details proffered include a map’s lack of detail pertaining to private properties, parking lots, or parking garages and private lots. Also, the specification describes the “connection region” as the region of the digital map for which “only insufficient information about a roadway path 9, trajectories 10 or behavior data 11 is available.” However, the specification goes on to state that “the connection region 5 extends at least partially into the region of the digital map 2 in which sufficient behavior data 11, trajectories 10 or roadway paths 9 are still available.” These statements appear to be in conflict making it unclear how a connection region can only have insufficient information, but then also extend partially into a region where sufficient detail exists. These statements are at odds with each other in the instant disclosure, thus creating ambiguity as to how to actually define the “connection region” and which portions of a given map encompass the connection region. While it appears that the connection region is an attempt to combine the overlap region and an unknown/detail deficient region, it is unclear how far this regions (and the associated regions) extend and where their limits exist, thus creating ambiguity as to the scope of each region. The specification goes on to state that, “The computing unit 20 can, for example, process the information from the digital map 2 and pass it on to the control unit 8. The computing unit 20 can be provided either online in the device 4 or in a cloud. In order to be able to use such a digital map 2 also in other regions of an environment, it is therefore necessary to create a map extension and correspondingly to integrate it into the digital map 2 for use. This map extension should be created with high precision and additionally offer a high degree of safety, so that the movable device 4 can be controlled, in particular with a partially and/or fully autonomous driving function 3. An example of what such a map extension might look like is shown below in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 is a highly simplified exemplary representation of a map extension 1. The map extension 1 has an extension region 6 and an overlap region 7. The extension region 6 and the overlap region 7, for example, have information about a roadway path 9. The overlap region 7 corresponds at least to a partially identical environmental region as the connection region of the digital map. The extension region 6 is provided adjacent to the overlap region 7. The extension region 6 describes the region that is not present or only partially present in the digital map. The extension region 6 can, for example, be a parking lot. For mapping a private parking lot in the extension region 6, the owner of the private property must request approval for the mapping of the extension region 6 . The extension region 6 and the overlap region 7 can then be recorded with the aid of sensors . Thus, different sensors of movable devices can be used for mapping or recording the map extension 1 and in particular the overlap region 7 and the extension region 6. The map extension is preferably a high-precision map extension and is created, for example, with the aid of lidar data, and/or radar data, and/or video camera data, and/or infrared data, and/or magnetic field data, and/or ultrasound data. The map extension 1 recorded with the aid of the data can then be merged with the digital map with the aid of correspondence-based alignments. For the correspondence-based alignments, in particular point correspondences and/or patch correspondences and/or line correspondences can be used. For example, it is possible that the map extension is geometrically connected to the digital map with the aid of an FCGF method. To ensure the correct integration of the map extension 1 into the digital map, the method described above in connection with Fig. 1 can be used. The method offers the advantage that the verification of the integration of the map extension 1 offers a high level of safety and thus the map extension 1 can also be used for partially and/or fully automated control of a movable device. The following Fig. 4 and 5 show by way of example how such a verification of the map extension 1 for the digital map can be performed.” As to the underlined portions of the specification re-created above, the specification largely relies upon prophetic statements of what could be used to define each of the claimed regions and which types of sensors/technology could be used to perform some sort of capture of areas to add them to a map without definitively describing how this process takes place. The specification states that, “in order to be able to use such a digital map 2 also in other regions of an environment, it is therefore necessary to create a map extension and correspondingly to integrate it into the digital map 2 for use.” It is unclear what “the other regions” are in this scenario, how to identify these regions, and to which specific environment(s) the specification is referring. The specification then alludes to Figures 3 and 5 as what a map extension “might look like” while offering no details as to how the elements of the invention cooperate to arrive at the claimed invention of verifying and approving a map extension. As such, it is left to a reader to have to determine how to employ the mix-and-match disclosed elements and construct them in some undisclosed manner to set forth the steps necessary to achieve the claimed results. At one point the specification states that “the owner of the private property must request approval for the mapping of the extension region,” and also says that an FCGF method could be employed. It is unclear whether the claimed invention of verifying and approving a map extension requires some sort of property owner request or is automatically performed via some undiscussed FCGF method during driving. The specification provides no insight into the essential steps required to set up the verification/approval process being claimed. Further, none of the mix-and-match characteristics of the elements for measuring further elaborate details regarding how the measurements are collected besides provide a mere listing of types of data that can be gathered via some process which the reader must infer. The definitive scope of each of the connection, overlap, and extension regions cannot be ascertained by the disclosure. Both a connection region and overlap region (which appears to be disclosed as part of the connection region) are subjected to a verification procedure which somehow yields an improved estimation/statement about the quality of the map extension and a subsequent determination can be made regarding whether the extension has been integrated into the map accurately and precisely. The specification is scant on details as to how any of these regions are selected or identified. The disclosure also does not disclose how an extension is chosen, identified, and subsequently validated. There are also no details on the thresholds or manner of measuring whether a quality extension has been created. Each region, as disclosed, appears to merely exist without the requisite details showing sufficient supporting information as to how each of these regions are identified each time within each scenario where they may exist during navigation. The extension region is described as being adjacent to an overlap region and describing a region that is not present or is only partially present. The specification is inadequate in describing how an area is deemed to be not present/partially present and the then moves to verification/approval. Without this foundational information, the scope of Applicant’s invention for which patent protection is sought cannot be ascertained. Claim 3 recites safety-relevant driving functions, which is a term of relative degree since certain functions may be considered to be relevant or irrelevant depending on the driver, road conditions, presence of other drivers, time of day, vehicle handling capabilities, and a multitude of other factors, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected as being dependent upon the rejected claims above and inheriting their deficiencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0180979 to Kitahara . Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kitahara discloses a computer-implemented method for verifying and approving a map extension for a digital map for use in a movable device, the movable device including a vehicle or a robot, wherein the digital map includes at least one connection region, and the map extension includes at least one extension region and at least one overlap region, wherein the overlap region describes an at least partially identical environmental region as the connection region of the digital map ( At least the self-estimation performed by the own vehicle localization process at least via main processor, 40/control unit disclosed, at least Par. [0308-0310] ), wherein the method comprises the following steps: verifying the map extension using the connection region and the overlap region, wherein a geometric reconciliation and/or a feature-based localization, between the connection region and the overlap region is performed for the verification ( At least the own vehicle localization process undertaken at least via main processor, 40 to identify the detailed position of the own vehicle by checking landmark images and comparing them to the landmark coordinates within the map information, at least Par. [0128-0137, 0143-0153]; Fig. 6 and 9 ), wherein at least one data set and at least one associated comparison data point having at least one specified tolerance value are used for the geometric reconciliation and/or the feature-based localization ( At least where the threshold is set for the comparison between the self-estimation and comparison point/landmark measured by the sensors, at least Par. [0128-0137, 0143-0153]; Fig. 6 and 9 ), wherein a position estimation of the movable device and/or a self-movement estimation of the movable device is used as the data set for the overlap region ( At least the comparison to the self-estimation ), wherein a measured value from at least one measurement run is used as the comparison data point for the connection region ( At least the measured comparison point/landmark ), and wherein the data set is compared with the comparison data point; and approving the map extension for the digital map for use in the movable device when the data set is within the range of the specified tolerance value of the associated comparison data point ( At least when the tolerance threshold is met by comparison of the self-estimation and landmark via the updating process shown at least in Fig. 6 and 9, Par. [0128-0137, 0143-0153] ). Even though Kitahara does not expressly discuss the specific terms of “connection” or “overlap,” it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have readily recognized and understood that the portions of the map where known landmarks are leveraged and verified and used to update new portions of a map would encompass the regions claimed. Further, these regions necessarily exist within Kitahara since (as best understood by Applicant’s disclosure) these regions merely represent a particular data type reflected on a map and Kitahara encompasses the disclosed data types for these regions (self-estimation data and measurement run data). Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the primary reference, Kitahara, discloses that the map extension is approved for the digital map for controlling a driving function for the movable device ( At least where the map is approved for autonomous driving in that location and the map system generates and distributes a traveling trajectory for autonomous driving, at least Par. [0002, 0159] ). Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the primary reference, Kitahara, discloses that: (i) the map extension is approved for the digital map for partially and/or fully autonomous control of the driving function, and/or (ii) the map extension is approved for safety-relevant driving functions for controlling the movable device ( At least where the map is approved for autonomous driving in that location and the map system generates and distributes a traveling trajectory for autonomous driving, at least Par. [0002, 0159] ). Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the primary reference, Kitahara, discloses that the map extension and the digital map are reconciled using correspondence-based alignments, wherein point correspondences, and/or patch correspondences, and/or line correspondences are used for the reconciliation ( At least via the alignment process for the probe data using a reference mark wherein the observed position coordinates of features are corrected – the correction method can use an iterative closest point method, discussed at least in Par. [0143-0153] ). Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the primary reference, Kitahara, discloses verifying the map extension using redundant comparison information having specifiable tolerance values; wherein satellite images and/or measurement data of a sensor from the measurement run ( At least the described GNSS, laser radar, optical camera, LiDAR, acceleration sensor, etc. ), are used as redundant comparison information; wherein the map extension and the redundant comparison information are verified with regard to geometric deviations taking into account the specifiable tolerance values, and wherein the map extension is approved when the geometric reconciliation is within the specifiable tolerance values ( At least the map update process exhibited in Fig. 6 and 9, Par. [0128-0137, 0143] ). Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the primary reference, Kitahara, discloses that the measurement data are in the form of various types of data, wherein a different type of measurement data than a type of measurement data on which the map extension is based is used as redundant comparison information ( At least the map update process exhibited in Fig. 6 and 9, Par. [0128-0137, 0143-0153] via leveraging GNSS, laser radar, optical camera, LiDAR, acceleration sensor, etc.) . Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the primary reference, Kitahara, discloses that the different various types of data include: lidar data, and/or radar data, and/or video camera data, and/or infrared data, and/or magnetic field data, and/or ultrasound data ( At least the described use of GNSS, laser radar, optical camera, LiDAR, acceleration sensor, etc. ). Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the primary reference, Kitahara, discloses that an estimation of a position of the movable device for the overlap region is ascertained as a data set for the feature-based localization, and wherein a localization of the movable device within the digital map during the measurement run is ascertained as a comparison data point for the connection region ( At least the map update process exhibited in Fig. 6 and 9, Par. [0128-0137, 0143-0153] ). Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the primary reference, Kitahara, discloses that a self-movement estimation of the movable device for the overlap region is ascertained as a data set for the feature-based localization, and wherein an actual movement of the movable device during the measurement run is ascertained as a comparison data point for the connection region ( At least the map update process exhibited in Fig. 6 and 9, Par. [0128-0137, 0143-0153] ). Claims 10 and 11 are rejected as reciting substantially the same limitations as those found in claim 1, which has been rejected as discussed supra . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0310450 to Reschka et al. discloses determining drivable surface segments of the new region and comparing the segments to segments or classes of segments from an already-mapped region. Segments of the new region that are similar to segments from the mapped region can be identified as potentially navigable. An autonomous vehicle can travel through the new region via those segments indicated as navigable. In addition, during travel through the new region, data may be collected using sensors on the autonomous vehicle to map additional portions of the region. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F. 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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. /BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/197,084 Page 2 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/197,084 Page 3 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/197,084 Page 4 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/197,084 Page 5 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/197,084 Page 6 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/197,084 Page 7 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/197,084 Page 8 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/197,084 Page 9 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/197,084 Page 10 Art Unit: 3669
Prosecution Insights