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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 07/30/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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 claim(s) contains 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 independent claim 1 (similarly Independent claims 9 and 17), the recited limitation(s) of:
(1) “generate a sparse map based on the dense map by applying a voxel downsampling algorithm to reduce a resolution of at least one dense map from the dense maps to generate a reduced resolution map that maintains traverasibility information between spatial regions and add the reduced resolution map to the sparse map”;
(2) “identify overlapping spatial regions between dense maps generated by different unmanned aerial vehicles of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles”; and
(3) “transmit at least a subset of the dense maps generated by a first unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to a second unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles when the second unmanned aerial vehicle is scheduled to navigate through spatial regions covered by the subset of the dense maps”; which are subject matter that were not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings because:
For limitation (1) “generate a sparse map based on the dense map by applying a voxel downsampling algorithm to reduce a resolution of at least one dense map from the dense maps to generate a reduced resolution map that maintains traverasibility information between spatial regions and add the reduced resolution map to the sparse map”. The published specification describes that the dense maps may be voxel-based (per [0022, 0057]) and that the sparse map is generated by reducing a resolution of at least one dense map to generate a reduced resolution map (per [0074]). However, the specification is completed silent in regard to claimed limitation of generating a sparse map based on the dense map by applying a voxel downsampling algorithm to reduce a resolution and that the reduced resolution map maintains traversability information between spatial regions.”
For limitation (2) “identify overlapping spatial regions between dense maps generated by different unmanned aerial vehicles of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles”. The published specification describes dense maps may be generated by flight control subsystems during flight that may store a representation of flight path of the UAV and other UAVs in some cases (per [0021-0022]). However, the specification is completely silent regarding the claimed limitation of “identify overlapping spatial regions between dense maps generated by different unmanned aerial vehicles of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles”.
For limitation (3) “transmit at least a subset of the dense maps generated by a first unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to a second unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles when the second unmanned aerial vehicle is scheduled to navigate through spatial regions covered by the subset of the dense maps”. The published specification describes when the UAV is at its dock or connected to a high-speed network, the UAV uploads its dense map and flight path(s) to a server and downloads dense maps generated at other UAV from the server (per [0072]). However, the specification is completely silent to the claimed limitation of “transmit at least a subset of the dense maps generated by a first unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to a second unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles when the second unmanned aerial vehicle is scheduled to navigate through spatial regions covered by the subset of the dense maps”.
Per broadest reasonable interpretation in the art and the lack of specificity from the specification. The newly amended limitation (1) “generate a sparse map based on the dense map by applying a voxel downsampling algorithm to reduce a resolution of at least one dense map from the dense maps to generate a reduced resolution map that maintains traverasibility information between spatial regions and add the reduced resolution map to the sparse map”; (2) “identify overlapping spatial regions between dense maps generated by different unmanned aerial vehicles of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles”; and (3) “transmit at least a subset of the dense maps generated by a first unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to a second unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles when the second unmanned aerial vehicle is scheduled to navigate through spatial regions covered by the subset of the dense maps” were not supported from the original disclosure. Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated 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 claim 2 (similarly claims 10 and 18) recites limitation(s) “wherein the flight path data comprises timestamped three-dimensional coordinates collected by onboard location trackers during flight” and “update the global graph in real-time as new flight path data is received to maintain current traversability information for the shared airspace” which are subject matter that were not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings because: The published specification describes that each node in the global graph may be associated with a time when the node was visited (per [0059]), the global graph may be updated using a submap graph updated based on changes to a part of global graph, updates the global graph based on information received during flight or another aerial vehicle, based on user annotations (per [0088]). However, the specification is completely silent to the claimed limitation of “wherein the flight path data comprises timestamped three-dimensional coordinates collected by onboard location trackers during flight” and “update the global graph in real-time as new flight path data is received to maintain current traversability information for the shared airspace”. Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated 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 claim 6 (similarly claim 14) recites limitation(s) “compress the dense maps using a truncated signed distance function representation before storing in the memory to reduce storage requirements while preserving geometric accuracy for collision detection” which are subject matter that were not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings because: The published specification describes that “[0057]…the dense maps 612 may store dense, local geometry information (e.g., truncated signed distance function (TSDF), voxels, range images, or the like)”. However, the specification is completely silent to the claimed limitation of “compress the dense maps using a truncated signed distance function representation before storing in the memory to reduce storage requirements while preserving geometric accuracy for collision detection”, the specification does not mention compressing the dense map, let alone using a truncated signed distance function representation and further does not mention storing in the memory to reduce storage requirements while preserving geometric accuracy for collision detection. Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated 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 claim 7 (similarly claim 15) recites limitation(s) “associate each dense map with meta data including a timestamp of generation, an identifier of the unmanned aerial vehicle that generated the dense map, and a confidence score indicating reliability of the physical object locations based on sensor type and environmental conditions during data collection; and prioritize transmission of dense maps having higher confidence scores when multiple dense maps cover a common spatial region.” which are subject matter that were not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings because: The published specification describes that “[0059]…In some implementations, each node in the global graph may be associated with a time when then node was traversed and a probability that the nodes lacks physical object (e.g., based on the time when the node was traversed —for example, a node traversed 10 seconds ago may have a lower probability of having a physical object therein than a node traversed 10 days ago). Each edge in the global graph 616 may be associated with a probability that the edge is still traversable based on a time when the edge was traversed or a time when each node at an endpoint of the edge was last visited.” That is, the global graph is represented with nodes and edges and the nodes may be associated with a timestamp when it was last visited/traversed. However, the originally filed specification is completely silent in regards to associate each dense map with meta data including “an identifier of the unmanned aerial vehicle that generated the dense map, and a confidence score indicating reliability of the physical object locations based on sensor type and environmental conditions during data collection; and prioritize transmission of dense maps having higher confidence scores when multiple dense maps cover a common spatial region.” Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated 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 claim 8 (similarly claim 16) recites limitation(s) “wherein the voxel downsampling algorithm reduces the resolution from cells representing a first volume to cells representing a second volume larger than the first volume, and wherein the processing circuitry is further to: maintain a mapping between cells in the sparse map and corresponding cells in the dense map to enable retrieval of high-resolution geometric data for precise navigation maneuvers; and dynamically adjust the downsampling ratio based on available memory resources and a number of unmanned aerial vehicles actively sharing map data.” which are subject matter that were not explicitly or inherently supported from the original specification and/or drawings because: the originally filed specification is completely silent in regards to the claimed limitation of “wherein the voxel downsampling algorithm reduces the resolution from cells representing a first volume to cells representing a second volume larger than the first volume, and wherein the processing circuitry is further to: maintain a mapping between cells in the sparse map and corresponding cells in the dense map to enable retrieval of high-resolution geometric data for precise navigation maneuvers; and dynamically adjust the downsampling ratio based on available memory resources and a number of unmanned aerial vehicles actively sharing map data.” Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated 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.
The claims dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 first paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and claim 17 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The other analogous claims 9 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
processing circuitry and memory, the processing circuitry to:
receive dense maps from a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, wherein each of the dense maps represents locations of physical objects within a three-dimensional space as detected by onboard sensors of the unmanned aerial vehicles during flight operations;
store the dense maps in the memory in a hierarchical data structure organized by three- dimensional spatial regions;
generate a sparse map based on the dense maps by applying a voxel downsampling algorithm to reduce a resolution of at least one dense map from the dense maps to generate a reduced resolution map that maintains traversability information between spatial regions and add the reduced resolution map to the sparse map;
identify overlapping spatial regions between dense maps generated by different unmanned aerial vehicles of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles;
transmit at least a subset of the dense maps generated by a first unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to a second unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles when the second unmanned aerial vehicle is scheduled to navigate through spatial regions covered by the subset of the dense maps; and
transmit the sparse map to at least one unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to enable autonomous path planning by an onboard flight control subsystem of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” and/or mathematical concepts because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or applying a mathematical tool. For example, the bolded limitation can be performed by a human, for example, an analyst collects detailed 3D survey data from several surveying apparatus (e.g., inspection UAVs) covering different portions of the same physical environment; he/she organizes the survey data into nested geographical areas such as building, floor, room and location (corresponds to “store the dense map…spatial regions”); he/she creates a simplified 3D map using known mathematical technique by removing unnecessary details while preserving the corridors through which an UAV can safely travel (corresponds to “generate a sparse map…to the sparse maps”); he/she compares that two UAV’s survey data to make a simple judgement which physical areas were mapped by both UAVs (corresponds to “identify overlapping spatial…aerial vehicles”); he/she selects relevant set of information based on future surveying tasks need to verify data accuracy for an upcoming scheduled UAV inspection task (corresponds to “transmit at least a subset…by the subset of dense maps”).
Examiner would also note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
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 system comprising:
processing circuitry and memory, the processing circuitry to:
receive dense maps from a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, wherein each of the dense maps represents locations of physical objects within a three-dimensional space as detected by onboard sensors of the unmanned aerial vehicles during flight operations;
store the dense maps in the memory in a hierarchical data structure organized by three- dimensional spatial regions;
generate a sparse map based on the dense maps by applying a voxel downsampling algorithm to reduce a resolution of at least one dense map from the dense maps to generate a reduced resolution map that maintains traversability information between spatial regions and add the reduced resolution map to the sparse map;
identify overlapping spatial regions between dense maps generated by different unmanned aerial vehicles of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles;
transmit at least a subset of the dense maps generated by a first unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to a second unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles when the second unmanned aerial vehicle is scheduled to navigate through spatial regions covered by the subset of the dense maps; and
transmit the sparse map to at least one unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to enable autonomous path planning by an onboard flight control subsystem of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of receive dense map, and transmit sparse map; the examiner submits that these limitation are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receive dense maps step are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of acquiring data) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of “transmit sparse map” is recited at a high level of generality of post solution activities which is another form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the claim further rrecites “processing circuitry” and “memory” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise abstract ideas and/or additional limitations in a generic or general-purpose computer environment, where processing circuitry is recited as generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring, processing, and transmitting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “processing circuitry” and “memory”, the examiner submits that the processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component performing generic calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solutions activities.
As explained, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S., 208,223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Electric Power Group, LLC v, Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection, analysis and display constitute insignificant extra-solution activity). Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016)( Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significant more, and thus are ineligible.
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 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) 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimentel et al. (US 2020/0132822 A1 hereinafter Pimentel) in view of He et al. (US 2026/0236024 A1 hereinafter He).
Regarding Claim 1 (Similarly Claims 9 and 17), Pimentel teaches A system (see at least Abstract) comprising:
processing circuitry and memory (see at least Fig. 1-3), the processing circuitry to:
receive dense maps from (see at least [0039, 0054]: mapping manager 126 can be used to provide LiDAR-based real-time mapping for various applications, such as construction, surveying, target inspection, etc. Rather than collecting data to be post-processed into a map representation of the target, a map can be constructed in real-time, enabling a version of the map to be rendered on client device 110 as it is collected.)
store the dense maps in the memory in a hierarchical data structure organized by three- dimensional spatial regions; (see at least Figs. 4A-4B [0060]: data representing a 3D environment 400 can be divided into a plurality of voxels. As shown in FIG. 4A, the target environment can be divided into eight voxels, with each voxel being further divided into eight sub-voxels, and each sub-voxel divided into eight further smaller sub-voxels. Each voxel may represent a different volumetric portion of the 3D environment. The voxels may be subdivided until a smallest voxel size is reached. The resulting 3D environment can be represented as a hierarchical data structure 402, where the root of the data structure represents the entire 3D environment, and each child node represents a different voxel in different hierarchy within the 3D environment.)
generate a sparse map based on the dense maps by applying a voxel downsampling algorithm to reduce a resolution of at least one dense map from the dense maps to generate a reduced resolution map that maintains traversability information between spatial regions and add the reduced resolution map to the sparse map; (see at least Figs. 5A-5B [0039, 0052-0061, 0091, 0095, 0101]: The mapping manager may transform a dense map into a sparse map with a lower resolution compared to a dense map. A lower resolution (e.g., larger voxel size) may be used to produce a sparse downsampled point cloud for visualization.)
transmit at least a subset of the dense maps generated by a first unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to a second unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles when the second unmanned aerial vehicle is scheduled to navigate through spatial regions covered by the subset of the dense maps; (see at least [0027-0033]: The communication between the client device 110 and the movable object 104 (e.g., an unmanned aircraft) can include uplink and downlink communication. The uplink communication can be used for transmitting control signals, the downlink communication can be used for transmitting media or video stream, mapping data collected scanning sensors, or other sensor data collected by other sensors.) and
transmit the sparse map to at least one unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to enable autonomous path planning by an onboard flight control subsystem of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle. (see at least [0039]: the live rendering of the map may be a lower resolution or a compressed data version of the map (i.e., a sparse map) compared to the version obtained from the movable object upon its return from scanning the target environment (i.e., a dense map). In some embodiments, the map may be output as a LiDAR Data Exchange File (LAS) which may be used by various tools to render the map of the target environment and/or use the mapping data for further processing, planning, etc.)
It may be alleged that Pimental does not explicitly teach receive dense maps from a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles,
identify overlapping spatial regions between dense maps generated by different unmanned aerial vehicles of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles;
He is directed to cooperative exploration systems for unknown spaces using autonomous robots, He teaches receive dense maps from a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, (see at least [0164-0165] The dense maps are generated from perception data of the UGV and the plurality of UAVs respectively.)
identify overlapping spatial regions between dense maps generated by different unmanned aerial vehicles of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles; (see at least [0164-0165] The dense maps cover different regions in space and partially overlap.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pimentel’s real-time mapping system in a movable object to incorporate the technique of utilizing multiple UAVs and autonomous vehicles to generate dense maps and identifying overlapping spatial regions between dense maps generated by different unmanned aerial vehicles of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles as taught by He with reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy and efficiency of environmental perception and mapping technologies (He [0007]).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pimentel in view of He and Tian (US 2020/0117212 A1).
Regarding Claim 6 (similarly claim 14), the combination of Pimentel in view of He teaches The system of claim 1,
Pimentel further teaches wherein each of the dense maps comprises a three-dimensional matrix of cells, each cell representing a first volume and storing a binary indication of whether a physical object occupies the first volume (see at least Fig. 4A-4B [0055-0060]: The map generator can divide the point cloud data into voxels. For each voxel, the map generator can determine how many points are in the voxel and, based on the number of points and the variance associated with each point, determine the probability that a point is in that voxel. The probability may be compared to an occupancy threshold and, if the probability is greater than the occupancy threshold, a point may be represented in that voxel in the output map. The probability P(n|z1:t ) of a node n being occupied is a function of the current measurement z1 , a prior probability P(n), and the previous estimate P(n|z1:t−1 ).), and wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
It may be alleged that the combination of Pimentel in view of He does not explicitly teach compress the dense maps using a truncated signed distance function representation before storing in the memory to reduce storage requirements while preserving geometric accuracy for collision detection.
Tian is directed to method and system for providing remote robotic control, Tian teaches compress the dense maps using a truncated signed distance function representation before storing in the memory to reduce storage requirements while preserving geometric accuracy for collision detection. (see at least Fig. 3 [0063]: RGBD data 302 received from the sensors (e.g., camera 106) collocated with the robot (e.g., robot 102) is streamed over a network and provided to a graphical processing unit 302 (GPU) on a central computing system 120 (e.g., server 110). Since KinectFusion is applied for dense mapping and localization, dense geometry is generated as the streaming surfaces of the 3D virtualized environment. In the GPU 302, TSDF update is performed, followed by collision detection, and followed by proxy update with force shading and ray casting. The resulting data includes a point cloud 306 and proxy values 308 for all haptic interaction points (HIPs). The point cloud 306 and the proxy values 308 are utilized in visual rendering on a display (e.g., display 112), and the proxy values 308 are utilized in force rendering on the haptic-enabled input device (e.g., input device 114).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pimentel and He to incorporate the technique of compressing the dense maps using a truncated signed distance function representation before storing in the memory to reduce storage requirements while preserving geometric accuracy for collision detection as taught by Tian with reasonable expectation to ensure optimum use of limited memory storage space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2 (Similarly claims 10 and 18), the combination of prior arts Pimentel, He and Tian taken either individually or in combination with each other or other prior art of records fail to teach or render obvious of (in particular, the underlined limitation):
receive flight path data from the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, wherein the flight path data comprises timestamped three-dimensional coordinates collected by onboard location trackers during flight;
generate a global graph based on the dense maps and the sparse map, wherein the global graph includes nodes representing locations in the three-dimensional space that lack physical objects and edges between nodes indicating unobstructed straight-line paths verified by the dense maps, and wherein the global graph incorporates a representation of one or more paths traversed by the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles based on the flight path data; and
update the global graph in real-time as new flight path data is received to maintain current traversability information for the shared airspace.
Regarding Claim 7 (Similarly claim 15), the combination of prior arts Pimentel, He and Tian taken either individually or in combination with each other or other prior art of records fail to teach or render obvious of (in particular, the underlined limitation):
associate each dense map with metadata including a timestamp of generation, an identifier of the unmanned aerial vehicle that generated the dense map, and a confidence score indicating reliability of the physical object locations based on sensor type and environmental conditions during data collection; and
prioritize transmission of dense maps having higher confidence scores when multiple dense maps cover a common spatial region.
Regarding Claim 8 (Similarly claim 16), the combination of prior arts Pimentel, He and Tian taken either individually or in combination with each other or other prior art of records fail to teach or render obvious of (in particular, the underlined limitation):
wherein the voxel downsampling algorithm reduces the resolution from cells representing a first volume to cells representing a second volume larger than the first volume, and wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
maintain a mapping between cells in the sparse map and corresponding cells in the dense maps to enable retrieval of high-resolution geometric data for precise navigation maneuvers; and
dynamically adjust the downsampling ratio based on available memory resources and a number of unmanned aerial vehicles actively sharing map data.
Based on the above, the combination of features is considered allowable.
The dependent claims would be allowable for dependent upon indicated allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights