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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome some but not all of the rejections under U.S.C. 112 previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 8/20/2025, see updated rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 103 is moot as it is not based on the claims as examined in the office action mailed 8/20/2025 but rather on the amended claims submitted 11/20/2025. The applicant’s cited limitations to argue against the rejection, such as “wherein the data is selected for the refinement is limited to data for which the first time stamp, the second time stamp and the third time stamp indicate the same point in time” are part of amendments added to the claim after mailing of the office action, and therefore not present for the previous examination and rejection. See updated rejection of the claims below.
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 112, the examiner recognizes that the amendments overcome the rejections under U.S.C. 112(a), and the rejection under U.S.C. 112(b) what was applied to both Claims 1 and 16, however no argument against the rejection of Claim 1 for being indefinite has been presented nor amendment made to overcome, as such the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The language of the limitation “wherein the first global location of the dynamic object at the first time stamp based on the first vehicle and the second global location of the dynamic object at the second time stamp based on the second vehicle are selected for refinement is limited to data for which” is a confusingly-worded phrase which while not rendering the claim indefinite does impede readability and understanding to the reader. The issue at hand is the grammatical confusion around stating “are selected is limited”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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. The claim recites “and data representing the location estimate of the dynamic object having a third time stamp,” however the nature of “the location estimate” is indefinite. In the previous limitations of the claim, “location estimate” is introduced as the location of the object as determined by the vehicle, however this appears to already be cited in the limitations as “data representing the second vehicle’s second determined location of the dynamic object” and “data representing the first vehicle’s determined location of the dynamic object”. Both of these already have a first and second time stamp respectively, making it unclear to the person having ordinary skill in the art what is to be assigned the “third time stamp”. This makes it unclear what, if any, previously-cited location is referred to by “the location estimate”. Alternative interpretations other than the “location estimate” being a redundant term are taught away from in the other limitations of the claims, as the global location estimate of the object is referred to always as the “global location estimate” such as in the limitation “based on the first vehicle's location, the location estimate and global location estimate of the dynamic object, and a first localization packet” and the final product of the refinement is not a valid interpretation as this is data used in the refinement. As such, the claim is indefinite based on the indefinite nature of “and data representing the location estimate having a third time stamp”.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are rejected under U.S.C 112(b) as indefinite for depending from indefinite independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-10, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Stouhi (US 20190069052), herein after referred to as Al-Stouhi, in view of Zhang (US 20210049902), herein after referred to as Zhang, Zhou (US 20200117193), herein after referred to as Zhou, and Michini (US 11725940), herein after referred to as Michini.
Regarding Claim 1, Al-Stouhi discloses:
a localization improvement circuit (see at least [0029] “A module can also include ... a discrete logic circuit, an analog circuit, a digital circuit" [0087] "localization can be improved"”)
receiving, from a first vehicle via a wired or wireless communications interface, first vehicle data indicative of first attributes of the first vehicle (see at least [0046] “various types of data can be communicated using the vehicle communication network ... the type and/or specifications of the vehicle, navigation data, roadway hazard data, traffic location data, course heading data, course history data, projected course data, kinematic data, current vehicle position data, range or distance data, speed and acceleration data, location data, vehicle sensory data, vehicle subsystem data, and/or any other vehicle information”)
the localization improvement circuit determining based on the first vehicle data, a location of first vehicle relative to a global reference frame (see at least [0044] “determine a position (e.g., an absolute position and/or a relative position) of the first vehicle 106. For example, the position determination unit 140 can include a global positioning system (GPS)”)
the localization improvement circuit detecting, based on sensor data, a dynamic object proximate to the first vehicle (see at least [0088] “Similar to the vehicles described with FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 6A, each vehicle shown in FIG. 6B can “see” or observe the target 606 utilizing respective sensors. ”)
the localization improvement circuit determining, based on the sensor data a location estimate of the dynamic object relative to the first vehicle's location (see at least [0084] “For example, the first vehicle 106 can include sensors that detect a position and/or a distance to the second vehicle 108a and/or the third vehicle 108b.”)
the localization improvement circuit refining, ... a first determined location of the target object. (see at least [0092] “Using the shared position information, each vehicle can perform localization of itself, other vehicles, and/or the target 606 at block 708.”)
based on the first vehicle's location, the location estimate and global location estimate of the dynamic object, and a first localization packet, (see at least [0092] “the first vehicle 106 can compare its self-geoposition and/or a relative position of the target 606 as seen from its self (X.sup.106.sub.606, Y.sup.106.sub.606), with the relative positions of the target 606 as seen from and transmitted by the second vehicle 108a (X.sup.108a.sub.606, Y.sup.108a.sub.606), and the third vehicle 108b (X.sup.108.sub.606, Y.sup.108b.sub.606).”)
wherein the first localization packet is generated by a second vehicle based on a second determined location of the dynamic object by the second vehicle (see at least [0091] “the second vehicle 108a can also transmit a relative position of the target 606 (X.sup.108a.sub.604, Y.sup.108a.sub.604) and a relative position of the third vehicle 108b (X.sup.108a.sub.108b, Y.sup.108a.sub.108b).”)
wherein the refining further comprises selecting and using for the refinement data representing the second vehicle’s second determined location of the dynamic object (see at least [0093] “at block 706, the relative positions used for comparison at block 704 or used to calculate the localized positions at block 708, can be selected from the relative positions received from the other vehicles.”)
data representing the first determined location of the target object based on the first vehicle’s location (see at least [0086] “ In some embodiments, which will be discussed herein, the first vehicle 106 can also confirm and/or compare position data from other vehicles and selectively choose which position data to use in order to refine its own position estimate.") (*Examiner interprets the system selecting other data to refine its own position estimations as selecting its own data as well as the other vehicle's)
and data representing the location estimate of the dynamic object (see at least [0086] “ In some embodiments, which will be discussed herein, the first vehicle 106 can also confirm and/or compare position data from other vehicles and selectively choose which position data to use in order to refine its own position estimate.") (*Examiner interprets the system selecting other data to refine its own position estimations as selecting its own data as well as the other vehicle's, and also interprets the indefinite term "the location estimate" as the first vehicle’s location estimate of the object)
and sending the refined determined location of the target object to an autonomous vehicle (see at least [0042] “ the VCD 122 can be implemented remotely from the first vehicle 106, for example, with a portable device (not shown) or a device (e.g., remote processor/server) connected via the vehicle communication network 120.”)(*Examiner interprets that performing the functions of object location determination remotely means that the location of the object would be sent to the vehicle)
to update maps for autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle in an environment (see at least [0032] “The term “vehicle” can also refer to an autonomous vehicle and/or self-driving vehicle" [0044] "In some embodiments, the position determination unit can be a navigation system that provides navigation maps and navigation information to the first vehicle 106.”)
Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
the localization improvement circuit determining a global location estimate of the dynamic object relative to the global reference frame based on the first vehicle's location
[cooperative localization ] in real-time,
and a first time stamp associated with the second vehicle's second determined location of the dynamic object;
having the first time stamp,
having a second time stamp,
having a third time stamp
further wherein the data is selected for the refinement is limited to data for which the first time stamp, the second time stamp and the third time stamp indicate the same point in time;
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses:
the localization improvement circuit determining a global location estimate of the dynamic object relative to the global reference frame based on the first vehicle's location (see at least [0038] “ the positioning engine 106 determines absolute position and orientation of one or more detected objects based on the input from the position sensing module 136 and the relative position obtained based on the image processing.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to determine a global location estimate of the detected object relative to the global frame, as taught by Zhou to avoid traffic incidents by autonomous vehicles [0023]. Examiner notes that the limitation is also obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention based on the al-Stouhi reference, as the vehicle of this primary reference calculates its own global location and determines a relative location of the object- which could be understood to determine a global location as a location relative to a global location. However in the interest of clear prosecution the claim is rejected under the Zhou reference.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses:
[cooperative localization ] in real-time, (see at least [0030] “The MEC cluster 10 can be used to support a wide range of applications carried by individual vehicles or infrastructure sites, with negligible errors in real-time. This enables blind area monitoring, detection, and mitigation for individual vehicles and other applications based on sensory information that is obtained over V2X,”)
and a first time stamp associated with the second vehicle's determined location of the dynamic object; (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp”)
having the first time stamp, (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp [0040] "The FPP (“Fused Perception Packet”) is a data packet that is a fusion of the VPPs from the plurality of similarly-situated vehicles that are in communication with the RSU 20."”)
having a second time stamp, (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp [0040] "The FPP (“Fused Perception Packet”) is a data packet that is a fusion of the VPPs from the plurality of similarly-situated vehicles that are in communication with the RSU 20.") (*Examiner interprets that as each vehicle’s perception packet has a time stamp, the cited passage reads on a first, second, third, and so on vehicle's time stamp)
having a third time stamp, (see at least [] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp [0040] "The FPP (“Fused Perception Packet”) is a data packet that is a fusion of the VPPs from the plurality of similarly-situated vehicles that are in communication with the RSU 20.") (*Examiner notes the limitations is indefinite as described above, as interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation the term "the location estimate" may represent a vehicle’s estimate of the object's location)
further wherein the data is selected for the refinement is limited to data for which the first time stamp, the second time stamp and the third time stamp indicate the same … time; (see at least [0040] “The FPP (“Fused Perception Packet”) is a data packet that is a fusion of the VPPs from the plurality of similarly-situated vehicles that are in communication with the RSU 20. The FPP encapsulates positioning data of each of the plurality of similarly-situated vehicles in communication with the RSU 20 based on the fusion of the received VPPs corresponding to a specific temporal and spatial range, ”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to associate a time stamp with the vehicles’ determined location of the dynamic object, perform localization in real time, and select data for refinement based on time stamps representing the same time, as taught by Zhang to share perception results between vehicles [0038].
In the same field of endeavor, Michini discloses:
the first time stamp, the second time stamp and the third time stamp indicate the same point in time; (see at least [Col 10, Ln 41-45] “For example, the control point selection system 124 may identify matching precise GPS location information from UAV 12 by searching for and identifying timestamps that are the same or very close in time (e.g., within a threshold time period apart, such as within 1 second)”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the localization field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi in view of Zhang to use data having time stamps indicating the same point in time, as taught by Michini to match corresponding packets of positioning information [Col 10]. The examiner interprets the optional threshold time period of a second as a point in time; as time is infinitely divisible a single second may be reasonably interpreted by a person having ordinary skill in the art as a point of time.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
wherein the target object is the first vehicle (see at least [0089] “By exchanging local position data and relative position data using the time synchronization methods discussed above, each vehicle can update its own position estimate to self-localize itself”)
and wherein refining the first determined location of the target object comprises: refining the first determination of the location estimate of the dynamic object based on the first localization packet (see at least [0092] “Based on these comparisons, the first vehicle 106 can determine a self-localized position of the first vehicle 106, a localized position of the second vehicle 108a, a localized position of the third vehicle 108b, and/or a localized position of the target 606,”)
and refining determination of the first vehicle's location based on the refined determination of the location estimate of the dynamic object. (see at least [0092] “ the first vehicle 106 can compare its self-geoposition and/or a relative position of the target 606 as seen from its self (X.sup.106.sub.606, Y.sup.106.sub.606), with the relative positions of the target 606 as seen from and transmitted by the second vehicle 108a (X.sup.108a.sub.606, Y.sup.108a.sub.606), and the third vehicle 108b (X.sup.108.sub.606, Y.sup.108b.sub.606). ”)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
wherein the target object is the dynamic object (see at least [0092] “ each vehicle can perform localization of ...other vehicles, and/or the target 606 at block 708.”)
and wherein refining the first determined location of the target object comprises refining the determination of the location estimate of the dynamic object based on the received localization packet. (see at least [0092] “the first vehicle 106 can compare its self-geoposition and/or a relative position of the target 606 as seen from its self (X.sup.106.sub.606, Y.sup.106.sub.606), with the relative positions of the target 606 as seen from and transmitted by the second vehicle 108a (X.sup.108a.sub.606, Y.sup.108a.sub.606), and the third vehicle 108b (X.sup.108.sub.606, Y.sup.108b.sub.606).”)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
wherein the dynamic object is selected from a group consisting of: a pedestrian, a cyclist, and a vehicle. (see at least [0092] “localization of itself, other vehicles, and/or the target”)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
wherein the global reference frame comprises an origin of a selected coordinate plane. (see at least [0089] “each vehicle can estimate its own position using its own absolute position according to the global reference frame 608 and/or its relative positions with other vehicles according to its own coordinate frame”)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
wherein the global reference frame comprises a center of the Earth. (see at least [0085] “an absolute position defined by a global reference frame 608 that is earth-fixed (X.sub.n, Y.sub.n).”)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
generating a second localization packet based on the location estimate of the dynamic object (see at least [0091] “the first vehicle 106 can also transmit a relative position of the target 606 (X.sup.106.sub.606, Y.sup.106.sub.606), and a relative position of the third vehicle 108b (X.sup.106.sub.108b, Y.sup.106.sub.108b). ”)
and transmitting the generated localization packet to the second vehicle. (see at least [0091] “ the first vehicle 106 transmits first vehicle position data to the second vehicle 108a, the first vehicle position data including a geoposition of the first vehicle 106 (X.sup.n.sub.106, Y.sup.n.sub.106) and a relative position of the second vehicle”)
Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
and a third time stamp associated with the location estimate of the dynamic object
In the same endeavor, Zhang discloses:
and a third time stamp associated with the location estimate of the dynamic object (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to associate a time stamp to the vehicle perception information, as taught by Zhang to share perception results between vehicles [0038].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 7, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
transmitting the second generated localization packet using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. (see at least [0088] “using V2V communication, each vehicle can share position information”)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 7, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
performing an association for the dynamic object (see at least [0092] “Using the shared position information, each vehicle can perform localization of itself, other vehicles, and/or the target 606 at block 708”)
by determining a third location of the dynamic object relative to the global reference frame at a shared point in time based on the location estimate of the dynamic object … and the second vehicle's determined location of the dynamic object (see at least [0092] “the first vehicle 106 can compare its self-geoposition and/or a relative position of the target 606 as seen from its self (X.sup.106.sub.606, Y.sup.106.sub.606), with the relative positions of the target 606 as seen from and transmitted by the second vehicle 108a (X.sup.108a.sub.606, Y.sup.108a.sub.606), and the third vehicle 108b (X.sup.108.sub.606, Y.sup.108b.sub.606). Based on these comparisons, the first vehicle 106 can determine a self-localized position of the first vehicle 106, a localized position of the second vehicle 108a, a localized position of the third vehicle 108b, and/or a localized position of the target 606, at block 708.”)
Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
and the time stamp associated with the first vehicle's location estimate of the dynamic object
and the time stamp associated with the second vehicle's determined location of the dynamic object.
In the same endeavor, Zhang discloses:
and the second time stamp associated with the location estimate of the dynamic object (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp”)
and the second time stamp associated with the second vehicle’s determined location of the dynamic object. (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to associate a time stamp to the vehicle perception information, as taught by Zhang to share perception results between vehicles [0038].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 7, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
identifying additional vehicles proximate to the dynamic object; transmitting the second localization packet to the additional vehicles; receiving additional localization packets from each additional vehicle, wherein each additional localization packet is generated, respectively, by each additional vehicle and is based on, respectively, each additional vehicle's estimated location of the dynamic object and a time stamp associated with each additional vehicle's determined location of the dynamic object; and refining the first determined location of the target object. (see at least [0036] “the systems and methods discussed herein can be implemented with more than two vehicles" [0059] "the first vehicle 106 may identify other the vehicles within a communication range”)
Regarding Claim 16, Al-Stouhi discloses:
a first vehicle (see at least [0085] “A traffic scenario 600 includes a first vehicle 10”)
wherein the first vehicle is: equipped with advanced safety systems (ADAS); (see at least [0094] “advanced driver assistance systems can use the self-localized positions for anti-collision purposes”)
able to determine its location according to first vehicle data; (see at least [0044] “ position determination unit 140 can include hardware (e.g., sensors) and software to determine a position (e.g., an absolute position and/or a relative position) of the first vehicle 106.”)
and able to communicate with other vehicles; (see at least [0037] “The first vehicle 106 and the second vehicle 108 can communicate as part of a vehicle communication network, ”)
a dynamic object detected by the first vehicle as proximate to the first vehicle (see at least [0084] “the first vehicle 106 can include sensors that detect a position and/or a distance to the second vehicle 108a and/or the third vehicle 108b. ”)
a second vehicle proximate to the dynamic object, (see at least [Fig. 6B])
wherein the second vehicle is: equipped with ADAS (see at least [0094] “advanced driver assistance systems can use the self-localized positions for anti-collision purposes”) (*Examiner interprets that as the first vehicle is equipped with an ADAS it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time for the applicant’s claimed invention for the second vehicle performing similar operations to equipped with the same)
able to determine its location; (see at least [0037] “The first vehicle 106 and the second vehicle 108 can communicate as part of a vehicle communication network, ”)
and able to communicate with other vehicles; (see at least [0084] “ using V2V communication, each vehicle can share position information about itself and/or other vehicles”)
a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions; (see at least [0005] “ a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions”)
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform the operations of: (see at least [0005] “that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to”)
receive first vehicle data indicative of first attributes of the first vehicle; (see at least [0046] “various types of data can be communicated using the vehicle communication network ... the type and/or specifications of the vehicle, navigation data, roadway hazard data, traffic location data, course heading data, course history data, projected course data, kinematic data, current vehicle position data, range or distance data, speed and acceleration data, location data, vehicle sensory data, vehicle subsystem data, and/or any other vehicle information”)
determine the first vehicle's global location relative to a global reference frame based on the first vehicle data (see at least [0085] “the first vehicle 106 has an absolute position defined by a global reference frame 608 that is earth-fixed (X.sub.n, Y.sub.n). The position determination unit 140 can determine the absolute position of the first vehicle 106 based on information from the global positioning source 141 ”)
determine a first location of the dynamic object relative to the first vehicle's global location (see at least [0089] “the first vehicle 106 can determine relative positions of the second vehicle 108a, the third vehicle 108b, and/or the target 606 relative to the first vehicle 106 in the first vehicle coordinate frame 610”)
determine the second vehicle's global location relative to the global reference frame based on second vehicle data received from the second vehicle (see at least [0085] “each vehicle can estimate its own position using its own absolute position according to the global reference frame 608”)
determine a second location of the dynamic object relative to the second vehicle's global location (see at least [0088] “The second vehicle 108a can include sensors that detect a position and/or a distance to the first vehicle 106 and/or the third vehicle 108b. ”)
generate a first localization packet (see at least [0091] “the first vehicle 106 transmits first vehicle position data to the second vehicle 108a”)
based on the first global location of the dynamic object (see at least [0091] “the first vehicle position data including a geoposition of the first vehicle 106 (X.sup.n.sub.106, Y.sup.n.sub.106) and a relative position of the second vehicle … the first vehicle 106 can also transmit a relative position of the target 606 (X.sup.106.sub.606, Y.sup.106.sub.606), and a relative position of the third vehicle”)
and generate a second localization packet (see at least [0091] “the second vehicle 108a transmits second vehicle position data to the first vehicle”)
based on the second global location of the dynamic object (see at least [0091] “the second vehicle 108a position data including a geoposition of the second vehicle 108a (X.sup.n.sub.108a, Y.sup.n.sub.108a) and a relative position of the first vehicle 106 (X.sup.108a.sub.106, Y.sup.108a.sub.106) with the sensor data from the sensor unit 154 of the second vehicle 108a. In some embodiments, the second vehicle 108a can also transmit a relative position of the target 606 (X.sup.108a.sub.604, Y.sup.108a.sub.604) and a relative position of the third vehicle”)
refine a first determined global location for both the first vehicle, a second determined global location for the second vehicle, and a third determined location for the dynamic object based on the first and second localization packets. (see at least [0092] “Using the shared position information, each vehicle can perform localization of itself, other vehicles, and/or the target 606 at block 708. More specifically, at block 704, the method 700 can optionally include comparing self-determined positions to received relative positions and/or received geopositions. ”)
wherein the first global location of the dynamic object (see at least [0093] “at block 706, the relative positions used for comparison at block 704 or used to calculate the localized positions at block 708, can be selected from the relative positions received from the other vehicles.”)
and the second global location of the dynamic object(see at least [0086] “ In some embodiments, which will be discussed herein, the first vehicle 106 can also confirm and/or compare position data from other vehicles and selectively choose which position data to use in order to refine its own position estimate.") (*Examiner interprets the system selecting other data to refine its own position estimations as selecting its own data as well as the other vehicle's)
and send the refined determined global locations of the first vehicle, second vehicle and dynamic object to an autonomous vehicle (see at least [0042] “ the VCD 122 can be implemented remotely from the first vehicle 106, for example, with a portable device (not shown) or a device (e.g., remote processor/server) connected via the vehicle communication network 120.”)
for the autonomous vehicle to update maps for autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle in an environment according to the refined determined global locations of the first vehicle, second vehicle and dynamic object. (see at least [0032] “The term “vehicle” can also refer to an autonomous vehicle and/or self-driving vehicle" [0044] "In some embodiments, the position determination unit can be a navigation system that provides navigation maps and navigation information to the first vehicle 106.”)
Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
and determine a first global location of the dynamic object based on the first vehicle's global location and the first location of the dynamic object
and determine a second global location of the dynamic object based on the second vehicle's global location and the second location of the dynamic object;
and a first time stamp at which the first vehicle detected the dynamic object;
and a second time stamp at which the second vehicle detected the dynamic object;
at the first time stamp based on the first vehicle
are selected for refinement is limited to data for which the first time stamp and the second time stamp indicate the same point in in time;
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses:
and determine a first global location of the dynamic object based on the first vehicle's global location and the first location of the dynamic object (see at least [0038] “ the positioning engine 106 determines absolute position and orientation of one or more detected objects based on the input from the position sensing module 136 and the relative position obtained based on the image processing.”)
and determine a second global location of the dynamic object based on the second vehicle's global location and the second location of the dynamic object; (see at least [0038] “ the positioning engine 106 determines absolute position and orientation of one or more detected objects based on the input from the position sensing module 136 and the relative position obtained based on the image processing.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to determine a global location estimate of the detected object relative to the global frame, as taught by Zhou to avoid traffic incidents by autonomous vehicles [0023]. Examiner notes that the limitation is also obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention based on the al-Stouhi reference, as the vehicle of this primary reference calculates its own global location and determines a relative location of the object- which could be understood to determine a global location as a location relative to a global location. However in the interest of clear prosecution the claim is rejected under the Zhou reference.
In the same endeavor, Zhang discloses:
and a first time stamp at which the first vehicle detected the dynamic object; (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp”)
and a second time stamp at which the second vehicle detected the dynamic object; (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp”)
at the first time stamp based on the first vehicle (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp [0040] "The FPP (“Fused Perception Packet”) is a data packet that is a fusion of the VPPs from the plurality of similarly-situated vehicles that are in communication with the RSU 20.")
at the second time stamp based on the second vehicle (see at least [0038] “vehicle perception packets (VPP) (201), which are provided by one or more proximal connected vehicles … together with a corresponding time stamp [0040] "The FPP (“Fused Perception Packet”) is a data packet that is a fusion of the VPPs from the plurality of similarly-situated vehicles that are in communication with the RSU 20.") (*Examiner interprets that as each vehicle’s perception packet has a time stamp, the cited passage reads on a first, second, third, and so on vehicle's time stamp)
are selected for refinement is limited to data for which the first time stamp and the second time stamp indicate the same … time; (see at least [0040] “The FPP (“Fused Perception Packet”) is a data packet that is a fusion of the VPPs from the plurality of similarly-situated vehicles that are in communication with the RSU 20. The FPP encapsulates positioning data of each of the plurality of similarly-situated vehicles in communication with the RSU 20 based on the fusion of the received VPPs corresponding to a specific temporal and spatial range, ”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to associate a time stamp with the vehicles’ determined location of the dynamic object, and select data for refinement based on time stamps having the same time, as taught by Zhang to share perception results between vehicles [0038].
In the same field of endeavor, Michini discloses:
the first time stamp, the second time stamp and the third time stamp indicate the same point in time; (see at least [Col 10, Ln 41-45] “For example, the control point selection system 124 may identify matching precise GPS location information from UAV 12 by searching for and identifying timestamps that are the same or very close in time (e.g., within a threshold time period apart, such as within 1 second)”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the localization field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi in view of Zhang to use data having time stamps indicating the same point in time, as taught by Michini to match corresponding packets of positioning information [Col 10]. The examiner interprets the optional threshold time period of a second as a point in time; as time is infinitely divisible a single second may be reasonably interpreted by a person having ordinary skill in the art as a point of time.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 16, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
pre-constructed maps of driving areas (see at least [0044] “Navigation information may include ...map data”)
wherein the pre-constructed maps support relative localization estimates, (see at least [0044] “ the position determination unit can be a navigation system that provides navigation maps and navigation information to the first vehicle”)
wherein the system cross references localization packets with localization estimates performed by referencing the pre-constructed maps. (see at least [0092] “method 700 can optionally include comparing self-determined positions to received relative positions and/or received geopositions”)
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Stouhi (US 20190069052), herein after referred to as Al-Stouhi, in view of Zhang (US 20210049902), herein after referred to as Zhang, Zhou (US 20200117193), herein after referred to as Zhou, Michini (US 11725940), herein after referred to as Michini, and Steinberg (US 20190227175), herein after referred to as Steinberg.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 7, but Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first and second localization packets each contain identification information associated with the dynamic object.
In the same field of endeavor, Steinberg discloses:
wherein the first and second localization packets each contain identification information associated with the dynamic object. (see at least [0160] “receive LIDAR data (e.g., raw point cloud and/or pre-processed data generated by the anchored LIDAR systems, such as classified objects data), process the data for scene understanding (e.g. objects and obstacle identification, classification and tracking, drivable areas, localization) and will transmit this information to the vehicles”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to transmit identification information in the localization packet, as taught by Steinberg to operate a distributed lidar system which may provide navigation information to other vehicles [0161].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 11, but Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
performing an association for the dynamic object by matching the identification information associated with the dynamic object contained in the first and second localization packets
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses:
performing an association for the dynamic object by matching the identification information associated with the dynamic object contained in the first and second localization packets (see at least [0047] “The object matching routine (228) identifies objects referring to the same vehicle across the MpVPPs from different ones of the connected vehicles 40”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to perform an association for the dynamic object by matching the identification information in received localization packets, as taught by Zhang to identify objects referring to the same identified object by different vehicles [0047].
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Stouhi (US 20190069052), herein after referred to as Al-Stouhi, in view of Zhang (US 20210049902), herein after referred to as Zhang, Zhou (US 20200117193), herein after referred to as Zhou, Michini (US 11725940), herein after referred to as Michini, and Miller (US 20200074853), herein after referred to as Miller.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 13, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
affording greater weight to the localization estimate of the vehicle best equipped to accurately estimate a fourth location of the target object (see at least [0093] “ the first vehicle 106 can assign a confidence level to each relative position for use in the localization determination at block 708. In this embodiment, the confidence level can be based on a distance between the first vehicle 106 and the vehicle the relative position is received from. In other embodiments, the confidence level can be based on an error threshold from the absolute position of the first vehicle 106 and/or a relative position of the first vehicle 106 determined by the first vehicle 106.”)
and refining the location determination of the target object based on the first, second, received, and additional localization packets. (see at least [0092] “Using the shared position information, each vehicle can perform localization of itself, other vehicles, and/or the target 606 at block 708. More specifically, at block 704, the method 700 can optionally include comparing self-determined positions to received relative positions and/or received geopositions. ”)
Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
determining which vehicle, among the first vehicle, second vehicle, and additional vehicles, is best equipped to accurately determine a fourth location of the target object
On the same field of endeavor, Miller discloses:
determining which vehicle, among the first vehicle, second vehicle, and additional vehicles, is best equipped to accurately determine a fourth location of the target object (see at least [0199] “One factor that may be used to influence the tagging event weighting score is the tagger reputation score associated with the initiating member. A “tagger reputation score” is derived from the aggregated or composite validity of tagging data and confirmation data associated with tagging events in which the particular member was the initiating member. ”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to determine which vehicle is best equipped to accurately determine the location of the target object as taught by Miller to base a determination of the entity’s expected data validity [0199].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 11, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
affording greater weight to the localization estimate of the vehicle best equipped to accurately determine the fourth location of the target object (see at least [0093] “ the first vehicle 106 can assign a confidence level to each relative position for use in the localization determination at block 708. In this embodiment, the confidence level can be based on a distance between the first vehicle 106 and the vehicle the relative position is received from. In other embodiments, the confidence level can be based on an error threshold from the absolute position of the first vehicle 106 and/or a relative position of the first vehicle 106 determined by the first vehicle 106.”)
and again refining the location determination of the target object based on the first, second, received, and additional localization packets. (see at least [0092] “Using the shared position information, each vehicle can perform localization of itself, other vehicles, and/or the target 606 at block 708. More specifically, at block 704, the method 700 can optionally include comparing self-determined positions to received relative positions and/or received geopositions. ”)
Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
repeating the determination of which vehicle, among the first vehicle, second vehicle, and additional vehicles, is best equipped to accurately determine the target location of the target object
On the same field of endeavor, Miller discloses:
repeating the determination of which vehicle, among the first vehicle, second vehicle, and additional vehicles, is best equipped to accurately determine the fourth location of the target object (see at least [0199] “One factor that may be used to influence the tagging event weighting score is the tagger reputation score associated with the initiating member. A “tagger reputation score” is derived from the aggregated or composite validity of tagging data and confirmation data associated with tagging events in which the particular member was the initiating member. ”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to determine which vehicle is best equipped to accurately determine the location of the target object as taught by Miller to base a determination of the entity’s expected data validity [0199].
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Stouhi (US 20190069052), herein after referred to as Al-Stouhi, in view of Zhang (US 20210049902), herein after referred to as Zhang, Zhou (US 20200117193), herein after referred to as Zhou, Michini (US 11725940), herein after referred to as Michini, and Crego (US 20210139024), herein after referred to as Crego
Regarding Claim 17, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 16, but Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the determined global locations of the first and the second vehicles and the dynamic object, including the first and second localization packets, each include an uncertainty range.
In the same field of endeavor, Crego discloses:
wherein the determined global locations of the first and the second vehicles and the dynamic object, including the first and second localization packets, each include an uncertainty range. (see at least [0054] “ The vehicle 102 may then use the uncertainty model(s) 130 associated with the parameters 128 in order to determine a total uncertainty associated with the estimated location 122(1). ”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to estimate an uncertainty of the estimated locations as taught by Crego to determine estimated location in order to prevent collision [0018].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 17, but Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first and second vehicles take the uncertainty range into account in refining the first and second determined global locations for the first vehicle and the second vehicle, respectively, and the third determined global location for the dynamic object based on the first and second localization packets.
In the same field of endeavor, Crego discloses:
wherein the first and second vehicles take the uncertainty range into account in refining the first and second determined global locations for the first vehicle and the second vehicle, respectively, and the third determined global location for the dynamic object based on the first and second localization packets. (see at least [0052] “Using the total uncertainty, the vehicle 102 may determine the estimated locations 116 for the first object 110. Additionally, the vehicle 102 may use similar processes to determine the estimated locations 114 for the vehicle 102 and the estimated locations 118 for the second object 112.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to estimate an uncertainty of the estimated locations as taught by Crego to determine estimated location in order to prevent collision [0018].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Stouhi (US 20190069052), herein after referred to as Al-Stouhi, in view of Zhang (US 20210049902), herein after referred to as Zhang, Zhou (US 20200117193), herein after referred to as Zhou, Michini (US 11725940), herein after referred to as Michini, and Lee (US 20170184726), herein after referred to as Lee.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the limitations of Claim 16, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
GPS receivers, (see at least [0044] “ the position determination unit 140 can include a global positioning system (GPS) unit”)
and wherein the localization system cross references localization packets with localization determinations determined by the GPS receivers to refine localization estimates. (see at least [0092] “ the position determination unit 140 can include a global positioning system (GPS) unit”)
Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the GPS receivers support real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning,
In the same endeavor, Lee discloses:
wherein the GPS receivers support real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning, (see at least [0048] “the vehicle coordinate of the local vehicle implements a real time kinematic (RTK) measuring device to acquire the coordinate”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle navigation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to incorporate real-time kinematic positioning to the GPS, as taught by Lee to accurately acquire a vehicle’s coordinates [0048].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Stouhi (US 20190069052), herein after referred to as Al-Stouhi, in view of Zhang (US 20210049902), herein after referred to as Zhang, Zhou (US 20200117193), herein after referred to as Zhou, Michini (US 11725940), herein after referred to as Michini, and Huennekens (US 11453387), herein after referred to as Huennekens.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Al-Stouhi discloses the method of Claim 1, and Al-Stouhi further discloses:
wherein attributes of a vehicle comprise … vehicle speed, trajectory, vehicle structure, (see at least [0046] “BSM that is broadcast by a vehicle can contain a number of data elements that describe various aspects of the operation of the vehicle or provide information about the vehicle itself. For example, the type and/or specifications of the vehicle, navigation data, roadway hazard data, traffic location data, course heading data, course history data, projected course data, kinematic data, current vehicle position data, range or distance data, speed and acceleration data, location data, vehicle sensory data, vehicle subsystem data, and/or any other vehicle information.”)
Al-Stouhi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein attributes of a vehicle comprise motive force, ... vehicle torque, and tire traction.
In the same field of endeavor, Huennekens discloses:
wherein attributes of a vehicle comprise motive force, ... vehicle torque, and tire traction. (see at least [Col 3, Ln 31-34] “ receive a signal indicative of the slip of the first tire relative to the surface upon application of torque from the motor, receive a signal indicative of the torque applied to the first tire" [Col 10, Ln 46-49] "Other sensors may include sensors related to operation of internal combustion engines and/or electric motors related to the horsepower, torque, power creation, power consumption, power transmission")
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Al-Stouhi to include motive force, vehicle torque, and tire traction as vehicle attributes, as taught by Huennekens to operate a vehicle [Col 1].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662