DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This Non-final communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/18/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6:
[data acquisition unit] Prong1: data acquisition unit; Prong 2: configured to acquire attribute data ; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. Specification: Page 6, [0030] ; The CPU 201 implements each function of the data supply device 21 by reading and executing a program. … The data supply device 21 includes a data acquisition unit 211, a data selection unit 212, a timing determination unit 213, and a data supply unit 214 illustrated in FIG. 4.
Claims 1, 7, and 8:
[data selection unit] Prong1: data selection unit; Prong 2: configured to select ; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. Specification: Page 6, [0030] ; The CPU 201 implements each function of the data supply device 21 by reading and executing a program. … The data supply device 21 includes a data acquisition unit 211, a data selection unit 212, a timing determination unit 213, and a data supply unit 214 illustrated in FIG. 4.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8:
[timing determination unit] Prong1: timing determination unit; Prong 2: configured to determine ; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. Specification: Page 6, [0030] ; The CPU 201 implements each function of the data supply device 21 by reading and executing a program. … The data supply device 21 includes a data acquisition unit 211, a data selection unit 212, a timing determination unit 213, and a data supply unit 214 illustrated in FIG. 4.
Claims 1 and 3:
[data supply unit] Prong1: data supply unit; Prong 2: configured to supply; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. Specification: Page 6, [0030] ; The CPU 201 implements each function of the data supply device 21 by reading and executing a program. … The data supply device 21 includes a data acquisition unit 211, a data selection unit 212, a timing determination unit 213, and a data supply unit 214 illustrated in FIG. 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2 and 5 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.
Claims 2 and 5 recite the limitation “ability …. is lower”. The term “lower” in claims 2 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the limitation, “an ability for the movable apparatus to detect an object is lower.” in claim 2 and “the ability for the movable apparatus to avoid the object is lower.” in claim 5 are rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections provided herein. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system or method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to Claims 9 and 10. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A data supply device comprising: at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a data acquisition unit configured to acquire attribute data indicating at least one of content regarding a movable apparatus that moves autonomously in a space and content regarding a sensor used by the movable apparatus; a data selection unit configured to select, based on the attribute data, space data to be supplied to the movable apparatus from space data generated by measuring the space; a timing determination unit configured to determine, based on the attribute data, a timing at which the space data selected by the data selection unit is supplied to the movable apparatus; and a data supply unit configured to supply the space data selected by the data selection unit to the movable apparatus at the timing determined by the timing determination unit.
which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process (concept performed in the human mind) to acquire data, select space data, determine timing, and supply space data. One of ordinary skill in the art could acquire a data set, select the space data of interest, determining the timing for supplying the data, and then supply the data according to the determined timing.
Similarly, if a claim limitation under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63; “Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F. 3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702. (Fed. Cir. 2015.))
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A data supply device comprising: at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a data acquisition unit configured to acquire attribute data indicating at least one of content regarding a movable apparatus that moves autonomously in a space and content regarding a sensor used by the movable apparatus; a data selection unit configured to select, based on the attribute data, space data to be supplied to the movable apparatus from space data generated by measuring the space; a timing determination unit configured to determine, based on the attribute data, a timing at which the space data selected by the data selection unit is supplied to the movable apparatus; and a data supply unit configured to supply the space data selected by the data selection unit to the movable apparatus at the timing determined by the timing determination unit.
The processor or circuit, mobile apparatus and sensor in Claim 1 is just using generic computer components. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on or with the use of generic computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hari (US 20230112004 A1)
Claim 1:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
A data supply device comprising: at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: (Hari – [0094] … In at least one embodiment, a vehicle 602, or other automated or semi-automated device or system, can generate or receive data using components of a state monitoring application 604 on the vehicle 602 and data stored locally on that vehicle. … In at least one embodiment, portions of this functionality can be performed using multiple computing devices, or multiple processors within one or more computing devices, such as may include a combination of CPUs and GPUs.) a data acquisition unit configured to acquire attribute data indicating at least one of content regarding a movable apparatus that moves autonomously in a space and
content regarding a sensor used by the movable apparatus; (Hari – [0024] … For an autonomous (or semi-autonomous) vehicle or robot, a real time frame processing estimation model may be used to determine the tolerable latency for each object detection camera or sensor. In at least one embodiment, if the processing latency of a sensor is greater than the tolerable latency for that sensor, then a safety check is failed and an alert is sent. In at least another embodiment, if the processing latency of a sensor is greater than the tolerable latency for that sensor, then the hardware resources are prioritized to the processing for that sensor. In at least another embodiment, if the processing latency of a sensor is greater than the tolerable latency for that sensor, hardware performance may be increased.) a data selection unit configured to select, based on the attribute data, space data to be supplied to the movable apparatus from space data generated by measuring the space; (Hari – [0031] … In at least one embodiment, outputs may include information such as vehicle velocity, speed, time, map data (e.g., a High Definition map (not shown in FIG. 1A), location data (e.g., vehicle 100’s location, such as on a map), direction, location of other vehicles (e.g., an occupancy grid), information about objects and status of objects as perceived by controller(s) …) a timing determination unit configured to determine, based on the attribute data, a timing at which the space data selected by the data selection unit is supplied to the movable apparatus; and a data supply unit configured to supply the space data selected by the data selection unit to the movable apparatus at the timing determined by the timing determination unit. (Hari – [0076] … When it is determined that a higher frame rate will be needed, it may be preferable to process at a higher rate which will result in increased comfort. For example, if there are more detected objects in the front of the autonomous vehicle, and there are no detected objects on the side, and the minimum sensor processing rate we predict is one FPS for the side cameras and six FPS for the front camera while there are excess hardware resources, it may be preferable to increase the resources for the front cameras at a normalize frame processing rate while keeping the side camera processing hardware resources low until some future time.)
Claim 2:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
The data supply device according to claim 1, wherein the data acquisition unit is configured to acquire the attribute data indicating content regarding a function of causing the movable apparatus to detect an object, and (Hari – [0024] … For an autonomous (or semi-autonomous) vehicle or robot, a real time frame processing estimation model may be used to determine the tolerable latency for each object detection camera or sensor. …) wherein the timing determination unit is configured to cause the timing at which the space data is supplied to the movable apparatus to be brought forward as an ability for the movable apparatus to detect an object is lower.
(Hari – [0050] … To determine an estimate of an acceptable processing rate for use in real world driving conditions, a multi-camera simulation can be utilized. The simulation allows for the analysis of the frame processing rate effectiveness over multiple driving scenarios. Then, it is possible to collect the trace, or the state of all the objects or actors around the autonomous vehicle at each given time, and determine an understanding of where all the actors are in the scenarios and running at determined frame rate for every camera. Based on the known information of where every object is in relation to the autonomous vehicle, an estimate of the minimum frame rate that the autonomous vehicle hardware will tolerate during the scenario can be determined. …)
Examiner’s Note:
For the purposes of examination the term “Brought Forward” is being interpreted as an adjustment to the sensor data transmission timing.
Claim 3:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
The data supply device according to claim 1, wherein the data acquisition unit is configured to acquire the attribute data indicating content regarding a function of causing the movable apparatus to detect an object and (Hari – [0024] … For an autonomous (or semi-autonomous) vehicle or robot, a real time frame processing estimation model may be used to determine the tolerable latency for each object detection camera or sensor. …) acquire object data indicating content regarding an object in the space when the ability for the movable apparatus to detect the object is equal to or less than a predetermined level, (Hari –[0050] … To determine an estimate of an acceptable processing rate for use in real world driving conditions, a multi-camera simulation can be utilized. The simulation allows for the analysis of the frame processing rate effectiveness over multiple driving scenarios. Then, it is possible to collect the trace, or the state of all the objects or actors around the autonomous vehicle at each given time, and determine an understanding of where all the actors are in the scenarios and running at determined frame rate for every camera. …; [0076] … In certain situation, when all the minimum processing FPS thresholds for all sensors are known and the processing for each sensor is within an acceptable range, available excess processing capacity may be allocated evenly across some or all of the cameras, or allocated based on prioritization.) wherein the timing determination unit is configured to determine a timing at which the object data acquired by the data acquisition unit is supplied to the movable apparatus, and wherein the data supply unit is configured to supply the object data to the movable apparatus at the timing determined by the timing determination unit. (Hari – [0076] … When it is determined that a higher frame rate will be needed, it may be preferable to process at a higher rate which will result in increased comfort. For example, if there are more detected objects in the front of the autonomous vehicle, and there are no detected objects on the side, and the minimum sensor processing rate we predict is one FPS for the side cameras and six FPS for the front camera while there are excess hardware resources, it may be preferable to increase the resources for the front cameras at a normalize frame processing rate while keeping the side camera processing hardware resources low until some future time.)
Claim 5:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
The data supply device according to claim 1, wherein the data acquisition unit is configured to acquire the attribute data indicating content regarding an ability for the movable apparatus to avoid an object, and (Hari – [0024] … For an autonomous (or semi-autonomous) vehicle or robot, a real time frame processing estimation model may be used to determine the tolerable latency for each object detection camera or sensor. …) wherein the timing determination unit is configured to bring forward the timing at which the space data is supplied to the movable apparatus as the ability for the movable apparatus to avoid the object is lower. (Hari –[0050] … To determine an estimate of an acceptable processing rate for use in real world driving conditions, a multi-camera simulation can be utilized. The simulation allows for the analysis of the frame processing rate effectiveness over multiple driving scenarios. Then, it is possible to collect the trace, or the state of all the objects or actors around the autonomous vehicle at each given time, and determine an understanding of where all the actors are in the scenarios and running at determined frame rate for every camera. …; [0076] … In certain situation, when all the minimum processing FPS thresholds for all sensors are known and the processing for each sensor is within an acceptable range, available excess processing capacity may be allocated evenly across some or all of the cameras, or allocated based on prioritization.)
Claim 7:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
The data supply device according to claim 1, wherein the timing determination unit is configured to determine the timing at which the space data selected by the data selection unit is supplied to the movable apparatus by determining a speed at which the space data is transmitted to the movable apparatus. (Hari – [0076] … When it is determined that a higher frame rate will be needed, it may be preferable to process at a higher rate which will result in increased comfort. For example, if there are more detected objects in the front of the autonomous vehicle, and there are no detected objects on the side, and the minimum sensor processing rate we predict is one FPS for the side cameras and six FPS for the front camera while there are excess hardware resources, it may be preferable to increase the resources for the front cameras at a normalize frame processing rate while keeping the side camera processing hardware resources low until some future time.)
Claim 8:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
The data supply device according to claim 3, wherein the timing determination unit is configured to determine the timing at which the object data selected by the data selection unit is supplied to the movable apparatus by determining a speed at which the object data is transmitted to the movable apparatus. (Hari – [0076] … When it is determined that a higher frame rate will be needed, it may be preferable to process at a higher rate which will result in increased comfort. For example, if there are more detected objects in the front of the autonomous vehicle, and there are no detected objects on the side, and the minimum sensor processing rate we predict is one FPS for the side cameras and six FPS for the front camera while there are excess hardware resources, it may be preferable to increase the resources for the front cameras at a normalize frame processing rate while keeping the side camera processing hardware resources low until some future time.)
Claim 9:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program including instructions for executing following processes: (Hari - [0290] Operations of processes described herein can be performed in any suitable order unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context. In at least one embodiment, a process such as those processes described herein (or variations and/or combinations thereof) is performed under control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions and is implemented as code (e.g., executable instructions, one or more computer programs or one or more applications) executing collectively on one or more processors, by hardware or combinations thereof. In at least one embodiment, code is stored on a computer-readable storage medium, for example, in form of a computer program comprising a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors. …) acquiring attribute data indicating at least one of content regarding a movable apparatus that moves autonomously in a space and content regarding a sensor used by the movable apparatus; (Hari – [0024] … For an autonomous (or semi-autonomous) vehicle or robot, a real time frame processing estimation model may be used to determine the tolerable latency for each object detection camera or sensor. In at least one embodiment, if the processing latency of a sensor is greater than the tolerable latency for that sensor, then a safety check is failed and an alert is sent. In at least another embodiment, if the processing latency of a sensor is greater than the tolerable latency for that sensor, then the hardware resources are prioritized to the processing for that sensor. In at least another embodiment, if the processing latency of a sensor is greater than the tolerable latency for that sensor, hardware performance may be increased.) selecting, based on the attribute data, space data to be supplied to the movable apparatus from space data generated by measuring the space; (Hari – [0031] … In at least one embodiment, outputs may include information such as vehicle velocity, speed, time, map data (e.g., a High Definition map (not shown in FIG. 1A), location data (e.g., vehicle 100’s location, such as on a map), direction, location of other vehicles (e.g., an occupancy grid), information about objects and status of objects as perceived by controller(s) …) determining, based on the attribute data, a timing at which the space data selected by the selecting is supplied to the movable apparatus; and supplying the space data selected by the selecting to the movable apparatus at the timing determined by the determining. (Hari – [0076] … When it is determined that a higher frame rate will be needed, it may be preferable to process at a higher rate which will result in increased comfort. For example, if there are more detected objects in the front of the autonomous vehicle, and there are no detected objects on the side, and the minimum sensor processing rate we predict is one FPS for the side cameras and six FPS for the front camera while there are excess hardware resources, it may be preferable to increase the resources for the front cameras at a normalize frame processing rate while keeping the side camera processing hardware resources low until some future time.)
Claim 10:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
A data supply method comprising: acquiring attribute data indicating at least one of content regarding a movable apparatus that moves autonomously in a space and
content regarding a sensor used by the movable apparatus; (Hari – [0076] … When it is determined that a higher frame rate will be needed, it may be preferable to process at a higher rate which will result in increased comfort. For example, if there are more detected objects in the front of the autonomous vehicle, and there are no detected objects on the side, and the minimum sensor processing rate we predict is one FPS for the side cameras and six FPS for the front camera while there are excess hardware resources, it may be preferable to increase the resources for the front cameras at a normalize frame processing rate while keeping the side camera processing hardware resources low until some future time.) selecting, based on the attribute data, space data to be supplied to the movable apparatus from space data generated by measuring the space; (Hari – [0031] … In at least one embodiment, outputs may include information such as vehicle velocity, speed, time, map data (e.g., a High Definition map (not shown in FIG. 1A), location data (e.g., vehicle 100’s location, such as on a map), direction, location of other vehicles (e.g., an occupancy grid), information about objects and status of objects as perceived by controller(s) …) determining, based on the attribute data, a timing at which the space data selected by the selecting is supplied to the movable apparatus; and supplying the space data selected by the selecting to the movable apparatus at the timing determined by the determining. (Hari – [0076] … When it is determined that a higher frame rate will be needed, it may be preferable to process at a higher rate which will result in increased comfort. For example, if there are more detected objects in the front of the autonomous vehicle, and there are no detected objects on the side, and the minimum sensor processing rate we predict is one FPS for the side cameras and six FPS for the front camera while there are excess hardware resources, it may be preferable to increase the resources for the front cameras at a normalize frame processing rate while keeping the side camera processing hardware resources low until some future time.)
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hari (US 20230112004 A1) as modified by Kim (US 20210326611 A1)
Claim 4:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
The data supply device according to claim 1, wherein the data acquisition unit is configured to acquire the attribute data indicating content regarding a speed at which the movable apparatus moves, and (Hari – [0031] … In at least one embodiment, outputs may include information such as vehicle velocity, speed, time, map data (e.g., a High Definition map (not shown in FIG. 1A), location data (e.g., vehicle 100’s location, such as on a map), direction, location of other vehicles (e.g., an occupancy grid), information about objects and status of objects as perceived by controller(s) 136, V2V information, V2X information, etc. For example, in at least one embodiment, HMI display 134 may display information about presence of one or more objects (e.g., a street sign, caution sign, traffic light changing, etc.), and/or information about driving maneuvers vehicle has made, is making, or will make (e.g., changing lanes now, taking exit 34B in two miles, etc.).
Hari does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Kim teaches:
wherein the timing determination unit is configured to bring forward the timing at which the space data is supplied to the movable apparatus as the speed at which the movable apparatus moves becomes faster. (Kim - [0062] On the other hand, when the speed of the host vehicle is greater than or equal to the first threshold speed (S121-YES), the electronic device 10 may perform the image processing operation by using the second image processing module 230 having less data processing throughput than the first image processing module 220. When the speed of the host vehicle is greater than or equal to the first threshold speed, because the host vehicle is currently moving at a high speed and thus moves a large distance during a unit time period, the necessity for a fast response speed may be relatively high from a standpoint of controlling the host vehicle by using the image processing operation and the processing result of the electronic device 10. … )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hari to include a method for adjusting the sensor data transmission timing as the vehicle or robot increases in speed as taught in KIm. Having the ability to increase the adjust the data transmission rates due to changes in vehicle speeds allows the vehicle or robot to react faster with a more accurate map of the environment and surrounding obstacles as vehicle/robot speed increases and also conserve computing resources when vehicle/robot speeds decrease.
Claim 6:
Hari teaches the following limitations:
The data supply device according to claim 1, wherein the data acquisition unit is configured to acquire the attribute data indicating content regarding a scheme by which the movable apparatus moves autonomously in a space, and (Hari – [0042] … For an autonomous vehicle, this may include making one or more adjustments, such as to a steering or braking system, to cause the vehicle to maneuver in a determined way along a determined path, such as a path that causes the vehicle to navigate down a current lane of a road, within the lane markers, while avoiding collisions and operating at an appropriate speed. In order to determine appropriate actions to take, it can be beneficial in at least some systems to first determine the path or trajectory which the vehicle is to follow. …)
Hari does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Kim teaches:
wherein the timing determination unit is configured to bring forward the timing at which the space data is supplied to the movable apparatus as a speed at which the movable apparatus moves in the space by the scheme becomes faster. (Kim - [0062] On the other hand, when the speed of the host vehicle is greater than or equal to the first threshold speed (S121-YES), the electronic device 10 may perform the image processing operation by using the second image processing module 230 having less data processing throughput than the first image processing module 220. When the speed of the host vehicle is greater than or equal to the first threshold speed, because the host vehicle is currently moving at a high speed and thus moves a large distance during a unit time period, the necessity for a fast response speed may be relatively high from a standpoint of controlling the host vehicle by using the image processing operation and the processing result of the electronic device 10. … )
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hari to include a method for adjusting the sensor data transmission timing as the vehicle or robot increases in speed as taught in KIm. Having the ability to increase the adjust the data transmission rates due to changes in vehicle speeds allows the vehicle or robot to react faster with a more accurate map of the environment and surrounding obstacles as vehicle/robot speed increases and also conserve computing resources when vehicle/robot speeds decrease.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Ebrahimi (US 20220066456 A1) describes a method for operating a robot, including: capturing images of a workspace; capturing movement data indicative of movement of the robot; capturing LIDAR data as the robot performs work within the workspace; comparing at least one object from the captured images to objects in an object dictionary; identifying a class to which the at least one object belongs; generating a first iteration of a map of the workspace based on the LIDAR data; generating additional iterations of the map based on newly captured LIDAR data and newly captured movement data; and actuating the robot to drive along a trajectory that follows along a planned path.
Xiang (US 20230115708 A1) describes an automatic driving device generates a control plan for autonomously driving a vehicle using map data. The automatic driving device determines an acquisition status of the map data. The automatic driving device generates the control plan using the map data. The automatic driving device changes the control plan according to the acquisition status of the map data.
Fukui (US 20200072619 A1) describes a map management device which can operate an autonomous mobile body also in a region where persons exist is provided. The map management device includes a dynamic map information generating unit which generates dynamic map information in which an obstacle is reflected on the basis of operation information on a facility obtained from a building facility management device and location information on a person obtained from a security camera or a motion detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW whose telephone number is (703)756-1854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 5.
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.
/ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights