DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 2019/0154842 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)) in view of Sridhar et al (US 2020/0139784 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)).
Adachi
PNG
media_image1.png
520
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
478
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
668
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
741
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sridhar et al
PNG
media_image5.png
324
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
364
468
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
322
418
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Adachi discloses in Fig 1-2 and 10-11 above a method of determining an error in a measurement of a location of a vehicle using a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) while traveling along a road segment in the vehicle, the method comprising:
interacting with a landmark associated with the road segment with the vehicle (Fig 10 – “1040”; Fig 11 – “1160”; );
receiving information about an absolute location of the landmark from a database (i.e. Fig 1 – HD Map Store 165; Fig 2 – Landmark Map API 255; [0034]-[0035]; [0050]; [0090]; [0096]);
determining the absolute location of the vehicle based on the information (Fig 10 – “1050”; Fig 11 – “1170”; [0090]; [0097]);
determining a second location of the vehicle based on a signal from the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (Fig 10 – “1010, 1020”; Fig 11 – “1120, 1130, 1140”; [0076]; [0090]; [0093]-[0094]); and
determining the error in the signal, based at least in part on a comparison of the absolute location of the vehicle compared to the second location of the vehicle (Fig 10 – “1060”; Fig 11 – “1180”; [0077]; [0090]; [0097]).
Adachi does not explicitly disclose the interaction includes contacting the landmark with a portion of the vehicle as claimed. Sridhar et al teach in the same field of endeavor in Fig 1-2 and 6 above the interaction with the landmark includes contacting the landmark with a portion of the vehicle ([0050]-[0051]; [0058]-[0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adachi in view of Sridhar et al to incorporate the interaction includes contacting the landmark with a portion of the vehicle as taught by Sridhar et al to gain the advantage of properly identifying landmarks to improve vehicle safety, and since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al disclose in Fig 10-11 above correcting a GNSS location of the vehicle based at least in part on the error (i.e. RTK/GPS corrections) (Adachi – [0077]-[0078]; [0090]; [0097]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 5, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al disclose in Fig 10-11 above wherein determining the second location of the vehicle includes receiving GNSS data from multiple satellites with a GNSS receiver on board a first vehicle (Adachi – [0076]; [0090]; [0093]), and determining the second location based at least in part on the received GNSS data (Adachi – [0076]; [0090]; [0093]-[0094]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 6, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al disclose in Fig 10-11 above determining the error includes determining an error in the GNSS data (i.e. reads on RTK/GNSS corrections) (Adachi – [0077]-[0078]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 9, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al disclose the GNSS satellites are GPS satellites (Adachi – [0038]; [0076]; [0090]).
Regarding claim 91, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al disclose broadcasting the error to at least one other vehicle (i.e. reads on RTK/GNSS corrections) (Adachi – [0016]; [0077]-[0078]; [0080]).
Regarding claim 93, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al disclose the portion of the vehicle is selected from the group of a wheel and a tire (Sridhar et al – Fig 1-2; [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 94, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al disclose the landmark is selected from the group of a road surface feature, a pothole, a manhole cover, a storm drain cover, a bump, and a frost heave (Sridhar et al – [0012]-[0013]; [0037]; [0049]; [0086]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi modified by Sridhar et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ghadiok et al (IDS reference – US 2018/0045519).
Regarding claim 3, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al do not explicitly disclose controlling one or more systems of the vehicle based at least in part on the corrected GNSS location of the vehicle. Ghadiok et al teach in the same field of endeavor controlling one or more systems of the vehicle based at least in part on the corrected GNSS location of the vehicle (i.e. “S400 can include controlling the vehicle (e.g., autonomously) according to the determined global system location and/or precise system location relative to an identified landmark position (e.g., in order to avoid an obstacle, to achieve a desired destination, etc.”) ([0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adachi modified by Sridhar et al in view of Ghadiok et al to incorporate such controlling one or more systems of the vehicle based at least in part on the corrected GNSS location of the vehicle as taught by Ghadiok et al to gain the advantage of properly controlling / maneuvering the vehicle to avoid obstacles and/or collision and improve occupant safety once error is detected, and since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi modified by Sridhar et al and Ghadiok et al as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of King et al (IDS reference – US 2020/0211394).
Regarding claim 4, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al and Ghadiok et al disclose the one or more systems of the vehicle (Ghadiok et al – [0071]). However, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al and Ghadiok et al do not explicitly disclose the one or more systems of the vehicle includes at least one selected from a suspension system, propulsion system, adaptive driver assistance systems (ADAS), electric power steering system (EPS), a cruise control system, and antilock braking system as claimed. King et al teach in the same field of endeavor the one or more systems of the vehicle includes at least one selected from a suspension system, propulsion system, adaptive driver assistance systems (ADAS), electric power steering system (EPS), a cruise control system, and antilock braking system ([0045]) which can be utilized for controlling a vehicle once error is detected including GNSS localization error (i.e. trajectory error) (Abstract; [0029]-[0030]-[0031]; [0035]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adachi modified by Sridhar et al and Ghadiok et al in view of King et al to incorporate such one or more systems of the vehicle includes at least one selected from a suspension system, propulsion system, adaptive driver assistance systems (ADAS), electric power steering system (EPS), a cruise control system, and antilock braking system as taught by King et al to gain the advantage of properly controlling / maneuvering the vehicle to avoid obstacles and/or collision and improve occupant safety once error is detected (King et al [0031]; [0035]; [0042]), and since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi modified by Sridhar et al as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al (US 2011/0018763 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)).
Regarding claims 7-8, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al do not explicitly disclose the error is specific to one or more of the multiple satellites, wherein the error specific to one or more of the multiple satellites is at least one selected from the group of a satellite timing error and a satellite distance error as claimed. Watanabe et al teach in the same field of endeavor the GNSS localization error is specific to one or more of the multiple satellites, wherein the error specific to one or more of the multiple satellites is at least one selected from the group of a satellite timing error and a satellite distance error ([0011]-[0015]; [0031]; [0033]-[0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adachi modified by Sridhar et al in view of Watanabe et al to incorporate such GNSS localization error is specific to one or more of the multiple satellites, wherein the error specific to one or more of the multiple satellites is at least one selected from the group of a satellite timing error and a satellite distance error as taught by Watanabe et al to gain the advantage of improving the accuracy in position calculation (Watanabe et al [0015]), and since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi modified by Sridhar et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20160111742 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)).
Regarding claim 90, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al do not explicitly disclose the landmark is a road surface anomaly as claimed. Kim teaches in the same field of endeavor the landmark is a road surface anomaly (i.e. road condition such as bump, irregularity, etc.) (page 3 – 3rd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adachi modified by Sridhar et al in view of Kim to incorporate such landmark is a road surface anomaly as taught by Kim to gain the advantage of properly identifying landmarks to improve vehicle safety, and since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi modified by Sridhar et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kundu et al (US 2020/0250984 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)).
Regarding claim 92, Adachi modified by Sridhar et al do not explicitly disclose the information about the absolute location includes an absolute geocoordinate of the landmark as claimed. Kundu et al teach in the same field of endeavor the information about the absolute location includes an absolute geocoordinate of the landmark ([0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adachi modified by Sridhar et al in view of Kundu et al to incorporate the information about the absolute location includes an absolute geocoordinate of the landmark as taught by Kundu et al to gain the advantage of properly identifying landmarks to improve vehicle safety, and since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of Adachi does not teach the limitations of “receiving information about an absolute location of the landmark from a database; determining the absolute location of the vehicle based on the information” as claimed. Applicant further argues that Adachi relies on GNSS signals/data and RTK corrections, not absolute location of the landmark, to determine the absolute location of the vehicle as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because as stated in section 12 above, Applicant is required to review the prior art in its entirety for the teaching, instead of relying only on the citations by the Examiner. Besides the citations above of Adachi which teach the claimed limitations, Adachi also teaches in paragraph [0036] “The online HD map system 110 sends 125 HD maps to individual vehicles 150 as required by the vehicles 150. For example, if an autonomous vehicle needs to drive along a route, the vehicle computing system 120 of the autonomous vehicle provides information describing the route being travelled to the online HD map system 110. In response, the online HD map system 110 provides the required HD maps for driving along the route.”; paragraph [0090] stated “In an embodiment, the HD map system determines the location of the vehicle by identifying features from the sensor data, for example, traffic signs, building, features on the road such as lane lines etc. The HD map system maps the features identified from the sensor data with the features on the HD map to determine the location of the vehicle.”; and in Fig 7 and paragraph [0070] which shows an example of map data received by a vehicle with the absolute locations of the landmarks such as stop signs, traffic lights, etc.; therefore, it reads of the limitation of “receiving information about an absolute location of the landmark from a database” as claimed.
In addition, paragraph [0090] of Adachi also stated “In an embodiment, the GNSS data processing module 290 iteratively improves on the current location initialized to the location based on the raw GNSS data based on the sensor data and the HD map data to determine an accurate location for the vehicle.” which reads on the limitation of “determining the absolute location of the vehicle based on the information” as claimed. Since Applicant never claimed that determining the absolute location of the vehicle is based only on the information of an absolute location of the landmark; therefore, Adachi’s teaching of the accurate location for the vehicle is determined based on the sensor data and the HD map data broadly reads on the claimed limitation of “determining the absolute location of the vehicle based on the information” (emphasis added).
Therefore, the rejections are sustained.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0401954 discloses an information processing apparatus and an information processing method. The information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to determine, in response to obtaining first information about a possibility of an abnormality in a road, the abnormality in the road based on behaviors of a plurality of vehicles in a predetermined range including a position corresponding to the first information.
US 12,051,247 discloses systems and methods for detecting and remediating roadway hazards. In example aspects, a machine learning model is trained on a dataset related to roadway items. Input data may then be collected by a data collection engine and provided to a pattern recognizer. The pattern recognizer may extract roadway features (physical and non-physical) and recognized patterns from the input data and provide the extracted features to a trained machine learning model. The trained machine learning model may compare the extracted features to the model, and a risk value may be generated. The risk value may be compared to a risk value threshold. If the risk value is equal to or exceeds the risk threshold, then the input data may be classified as a roadway hazard. Remedial action may subsequently be triggered, e.g., notifying other vehicles on the roadway, notifying other devices of drivers on the roadway, and/or notifying interested third parties (e.g., government agencies and/or private entities responsible for maintaining a roadway), to decrease the frequency of vehicles colliding with roadway hazards and to increase the efficiency of remediating the identified roadway hazards.
US 10,901,432 discloses systems and methods for determining the location of a vehicle. In one embodiment, a method for localizing a vehicle includes driving over a first road segment, identifying by a first localization system a set of candidate road segments, obtaining vertical motion data while driving over the first road segment, comparing the obtained vertical motion data to reference vertical motion data associated with at least one candidate road segment, and identifying, based on the comparison, a location of the vehicle. The use of such localization methods and systems in coordination with various advanced vehicle systems such as, for example, active suspension systems or autonomous driving features, is contemplated.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646