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 office action is in response to the amendment filed on 2 March 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1-7, 13-19 have been amended.
Claim 9 has been cancelled.
Claims 20-21 have been added.
The claim objection(s) and all rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-7, 13-21 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment(s) to the title of the invention filed on 3/2/26 has been accepted and entered.
The amendment(s) to the abstract filed on 3/2/26 has been entered. However, the abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Furthermore, it is noted that the entered abstract is merely one long run-on sentence and not grammatically correct. Run-on sentences are discouraged and disrupt the flow of thought and make it harder to understand the intended meaning. The Examiner recommends rewriting the non-entered abstract to not be presented as a run-on sentence and presented in a grammatically correct fashion.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 13-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the element(s) “possibility grid map” within the generating and updating limitations. However, the language of the claim is different on how the subject matter is disclosed in the specification. Applicant’s specification does not recite the term “possibility grid map”; however, 0017, 0068, 0072, 00132 of Applicant’s specification discloses the element “probability grid map”. The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 1 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in 0017, 0068, 0072, 00132. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the element of Claim 1 as ““possibility grid map” as “probability grid map”.
Claim 6, 13, 14 17, 20-21 recite the similar issue as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale as explained above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sensor inclusion” in the “wherein determine” limitation. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “a sensor occlusion” in the first “determining” step. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “sensor inclusion” should depend on “sensor occlusion” of Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. In addition, the term “sensor inclusion” does not appear in Applicant’s specification. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “and wherein determining the vehicle that causes the sensor occlusion comprises:”.
Claim 1 recites the element(s) “preset distance” within the last “determining” limitation. However, the language of the claim is different on how the subject matter is disclosed in the specification. Applicant’s specification does not recite the term “preset distance”; however, 0010, 0022 of Applicant’s specification discloses the element “reference distance”. The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 1 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in 0010, 0022. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the element of Claim 3 as ““preset distance” as “reference distance”.
Claims 13-14 recite the similar issue as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale as explained above
Claim 3 recites the element(s) “motion attribute information” within the determining limitation. However, the language of the claim is different on how the subject matter is disclosed in the specification. Applicant’s specification does not recite the term “motion attribute information”; however, 0011, 0013, 0023-0024, 0100 of Applicant’s specification discloses the element “moving attribute information”. The Examiner provides MPEP 2173.03 which states "A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty." Therefore, the subject matter explained in Claim 3 is inconsistent with its explanation as described in 0011, 0013, 0023-0024, 0100. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the element of Claim 3 as ““motion attribute information” as “moving attribute information”.
Claims 15-16 recite the similar issue as in Claim 3 and are rejected under similar rationale as explained above
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the moving attribute information" in the checking and determining limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation(s) of Claim 4 as “checking … the motion attribute information…and determining …the motion attribute information indicates moving”
Claim 16 recites similar limitation(s)/element(s) with similar issue(s) as in Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the vehicle” at the end of “determine” limitation. However, claim 14 already introduced the elements/term(s) “a vehicle” in the preamble, “host vehicle” in the generate step”, and “target vehicle” in the second “determine” step. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “a vehicle” in the preamble of claim 14 should depend on “sensor occlusion” of Claim 14, “host vehicle” in the generate step” of Claim 14, “target vehicle” in the second “determine” step of Claim 14 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “determine… whether the sensor occlusion is caused by the target vehicle.:”.
Claim 16 recites similar limitation(s)/element(s) with similar issue(s) as in Claim 15 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 1 of the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation(s) of Claim 21 as “the sensor unit comprises…”
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the low-level sensor information" in the obtaining limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation(s) of Claim 21 as “obtaining the low-level sensor information using a lidar”
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
The limitation of “generating a possibility grid map based on first sensor data sensed by a first sensor of a host vehicle “ as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, other than reciting for “first sensor of a host vehicle”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “generating” from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. For example, but for the “first sensor of a host vehicle”, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person to draw a map based on obtained data using pen and paper.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining, based on the first map data and the first sensor data, whether a sensor occlusion has occurred” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person being able to determine if there is an object in front of another object after reading the information.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining, as a target vehicle, a vehicle that causes the sensor occlusion” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, but for “vehicle”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person being able to select the vehicle causing the issue by looking at it.
Similarly, the limitation of “updating the possibility grid map based on the second sensor data” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person being able to modify a map on paper with a pencil and an eraser.
Similarly, the limitation of “calculating an intersection point for each of the plurality of sensor beam sections, wherein the intersection point is located between a center line of a first sensor beam section, which is one of the plurality of sensor beam sections” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing mathematical calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. That is, but for “plurality of sensor beam sections“ , “first sensor beam section”, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses an act of mathematical calculation using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number such as calculating an intersection point for each of the plurality of sensor beam sections. The user is able to use pencil and paper to find the point of intersection when a drawn line overlaps an object on a map.
Similarly, the limitation of “calculating a distance between the intersection point of the first sensor beam section and the first sensor data of the first sensor beam section” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing mathematical calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. That is, but for “sensor beam section(s)“ , “first sensor beam section”, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses an act of mathematical calculation using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number such as calculating a distance between the intersection point and the first sensor data. The user is able to use pencil and paper to find the distance between two points.
Similarly, the limitation of “determining, as a second sensor beam section in which the sensor occlusion has occurred, at least one sensor beam section in which the distance is greater than or equal to a preset distance.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person being able to compare if a measured distance is longer or shorter than a set threshold value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing mathematical calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
receiving a high-definition map including information for road structures, wherein the high-definition map includes first map data for a first structure that is not sensed by the first sensor;
receiving second sensor data sensed by a second sensor of the target vehicle
wherein the first sensor acquires the first sensor data in a form of point data for each of a plurality of sensor beam sections.
Each of the “receive” and “acquires” limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The sensor, sensor beam sections and vehicle in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the sensor, sensor beam sections and vehicle are used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional element(s): first sensor, host vehicle, road structures, target vehicle, second sensor, sensor beam section(s) perform the generating, multiple receiving, the multiple determining, updating, acquires, the and the multiple calculating steps. The first sensor, host vehicle, road structures, target vehicle, second sensor, sensor beam section(s) in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, multiple receiving, the multiple determining, updating, acquires, the and the multiple calculating functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Each of the “acquires”, and “receiving” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of sensor, sensor beam sections and vehicle in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using the first sensor, host vehicle, road structures, target vehicle, second sensor, sensor beam section(s) to perform the generating, multiple receiving, the multiple determining, updating, acquires, the and the multiple calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites the corresponding recording medium of the method of claim 1 wherein the medium of Claim 13 contains similar subject matter/limitations and elements of the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding recording medium of Claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claim 13 has the following additional elements: recording medium:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional element(s): recording medium, first sensor, host vehicle, road structures, target vehicle, second sensor, sensor beam section(s) perform the generating, multiple receiving, the multiple determining, updating, acquires, the and the multiple calculating steps. The recording medium, first sensor, host vehicle, road structures, target vehicle, second sensor, sensor beam section(s) in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, multiple receiving, the multiple determining, updating, acquires, the and the multiple calculating functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using the recording medium, first sensor, host vehicle, road structures, target vehicle, second sensor, sensor beam section(s) to perform the generating, multiple receiving, the multiple determining, updating, acquires, the and the multiple calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites the corresponding vehicle of the method of claim 1 wherein the medium of Claim 14 contains similar subject matter/limitations and elements of the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the vehicle of Claim 14 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claim 14 has the following additional elements: plurality of sensors, processor, memory:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional element(s): plurality of sensors, processor, memory, first sensor, host vehicle, road structures, target vehicle, second sensor, sensor beam section(s) perform the generating, multiple receiving, the multiple determining, updating, acquires, the and the multiple calculating steps. The recording medium, first sensor, host vehicle, road structures, target vehicle, second sensor, sensor beam section(s) in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, multiple receiving, the multiple determining, updating, acquires, the and the multiple calculating functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of using the plurality of sensors, processor, memory, first sensor, host vehicle, road structures, target vehicle, second sensor, sensor beam section(s) to perform the generating, multiple receiving, the multiple determining, updating, acquires, the and the multiple calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
D) Dependent Claims 2-7, 15-21
As per dependent claim(s) 2 and 19, the claim(s) do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 3, the limitation “determining...whether the sensor occlusion is caused by the vehicle” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person being able to select the vehicle causing the issue by looking at it.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 4, the limitation “checking...” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses a person being able to determine if they see a vehicle and if its moving.
Similarly, the limitation “determining...” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person being able to select the vehicle causing the issue by looking at it.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 5, the limitation(s) “broadcasting a communication ID” “transmitting one-to-one communication”, and “receiving…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, broadcasting / transmitting and receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 6, the limitation “calculating…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing mathematical calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. That is, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses an act of mathematical calculation using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number such as calculating a confidence using a formula based on obtain data. The user is able to use pencil and paper to find the calculating a confidence using written formula with the obtained data variables.
Similarly, the limitation “updating...” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person being able to modify a map on paper with a pencil and an eraser.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing mathematical calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 7, the limitation “calculating…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing mathematical calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. That is, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses an act of mathematical calculation using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number such as calculating a confidence using a formula based on obtain data. The user is able to use pencil and paper to find the calculating a confidence using written formula with the obtained data variables.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing mathematical calculations that could be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 15-18, Claims 15-18 recites the corresponding vehicle form of the method form of claims 2-7 wherein the vehicle of Claims 15-18 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of claims 2-7. Therefore, the corresponding vehicle of Claims 15-18 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of claims 2-7.
As per dependent claim 20, the limitation of “extracts feature points…”encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, extract information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation of “performing map matching with the high-definition map information based on the feature points of the road “, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is,, “perform” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually comparing two pieces of information to see if they are the same or not.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 21, the limitation of “obtaining…” and “extracts the feature points…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, extract information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the limitation of “generating …“ as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components. That is, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person to updating a map by adding new data using a pen/pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutila et al (US20190143967, 2019) in further view of Demir (US20190339705, 2019) in further view of Purdy (US20230058731, EFD 8/18/2021)
As per independent claim 1, Kutila et al discloses a method comprising:
generating a possibility (grid) map based on the first sensor data sensed by a first sensor of a host vehicle; receiving a high-definition map including information for (road) structures, wherein the high-definition map includes first map data for a first structure that is not sensed by the first sensor; (Note: the term(s) “possibility grid map”, “first sensor data”, “road structure”, “structure”, “high-definition map” are not defined by the claim language and the specification do not provide an explicit definition of what a “possibility grid map”, “first sensor data”, “road structure”, “structure”, “high-definition map” should be properly interpreted as. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied for the terms. In add Abstract, 0013, 0033, 0040, 0044, 0049, 0055, 0083; FIG 2A: discloses using sensors to obtain/acquire information of detected areas and unobserved areas and map data to obtain “road structures” in the map data. For example, 0013, 0040, 0049, FIG 2A discloses the driver and/or the vehicle sensor system is unable to observe a specific location in front of the vehicle and requires confirmation if there isn’t any VRUs/”road structures” in the unobserved locations (target is not in the view of that vehicle's sensors); 0058, 0083: radar, camera). Furthermore, 0030, 0033, 0048, 0053: recorded sensor data, from the first vehicle’s sensors, is obtained and used to update map; form of generating a sensor map)
determining, based on the first map data and the first sensor data, whether a sensor occlusion has occurred; determining, as a target vehicle, a vehicle that causes the sensor occlusion . (Abstract; FIG 2; 0015, 0043, 0056: determine that a second vehicle in front of the first vehicle is obstructing their FOV which obstructs regions of the first vehicle and requests data of those regions from that second vehicle)
receiving second sensor data sensed by a second sensor of the target vehicle; updating the possibility (grid) map based on the second sensor (0033, 0036, 0048, 0051, 0055 discloses receiving data from the second vehicle, via the second vehicle’s sensors, to update a layers of map on the first vehicle. 0058, 0083 discloses each vehicle sensor’s include camera and radar)
the first sensor acquires the first sensor data in a form of point data for each of a plurality of sensor beam sections, (FIG 2, 0043, 0058, 0071: discloses using LIDAR and FIG 2 shows individual beams (illumination lines) being sent out from each vehicle . One of a skilled artisan would have realized that with LIDAR, the received sensor data, of each of the plurality of beams LIDAR has emitted, would be in the form of point data since LIDAR is used to calculate distances from two points. )
However, Kutila et al fails to specifically generating a possibility grid map based on the first sensor information data sensed by a first sensor of a host vehicle and receiving a high-definition map including information for road structures. However, Demir discloses generating a possibility grid map based on the first sensor information data sensed by a first sensor of a host vehicle. (0030, 0033, 0041-0043; 0053: data forms/generates a grid map uses a camera and radar). Furthermore, Demir discloses receiving a high-definition map including information for road structures (FIG. 2; 0036, 0041, 0046: includes roadways, curbs, walls, dividers, signs, traffic control devices, road markings, and sidewalks, among other elements)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the recited features of Demir since it would have provided the benefit of utilize LiDAR with other localization systems to improve localization without causing distortion; thus, improving localization accuracy. (0003-0004)
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein determining the vehicle that causes the sensor inclusion comprises: calculating an intersection point for each of the plurality of sensor beam sections, wherein the intersection point is located between a center line of a first sensor beam section, which is one of the plurality of sensor beam sections, and the first map data for the first structure; calculating a distance between the intersection point of the first sensor beam section and the first sensor data of the first sensor beam section; and determining, as a second sensor beam section in which the sensor occlusion has occurred, at least one sensor beam section in which the distance is greater than or equal to a preset distance. (Note: the term “preset distance” is not defined by the claim language and the specification does not provide an explicit definition of what a reference distance is. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied for this term.) However, Purdy discloses transmitting multiple sensor emissions beams from the vehicle (e.g., light pulses) that may or may not reflect off of the objects and back to the sensor(s) of the vehicle; thus, generating sensor data. The sensor data represent at least the locations of the points for which the sensor emissions reflected. In particular, a vehicle transmitting a first beam of many sensor emissions beams (form of center line of a sensor emission/beam) that hits an additional object and reflects back to the sensor of the vehicle. (FIG 2B, 0052) The additional object represents sensor data from the environment, thus, an object of the environment. (0065, 0087, Claim 11) The sensor data is used to determine characteristics of the objects (0023, 0050) The sensor data represents at least the location of the point of reflection. Thus, using the reflection/insertion point, Purdy discloses a first distance between the car (based on the obtained sensor data) and obtained reflection point, such as 240(1) of FIG 2B (0053, 0055). Furthermore, Purdy discloses sending a second beam of many sensor emissions beams that hits object 234 and reflects back to the sensor the vehicle, which is considered a preset distance. Thus, using this reflection/insertion point, Purdy discloses a second distance between the car (based on the obtained sensor data) and obtained the other reflection point, such as 240(2) of FIG 2B (0053, 0055). Purdy then determines if the first distance 240(1) is greater than the second distance 240(2) to determine an area is obstructed. (0090) Thus, when compared, first distance 240(1) is greater than the second distance 240(2)(reference distance) and determining sensor occlusion has occurred.
As per dependent claim 2, Kutila et al discloses wherein the vehicle determined as the target vehicle is sensed in the second sensor beam section. (Abstract; FIG 2; 0015, 0043, 0056: each beam/line is associated with a section. Shows target vehicle in a different line/beams than other lines/beams)
As per independent claim 13, Claim 13 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Kutila et al discloses a medium (Claim 12)
As per independent claim 14, Claim 14 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Kutila et al discloses
a sensor unit having a plurality of sensors (Abstract, 0013, 0033, 0038, 0040, 0055, 0083: discloses using sensors to sensors to obtain information on objects around the vehicle/in the environment)
processor, memory (0026; FIG. 7)
As per dependent claim 19, Kutila et al discloses wherein the sensor unit includes at least a radar, a camera, and a lidar sensor (0058: lidar, camera, radar)
As per dependent claim 20, Kutila et al fails to specifically disclose extracting feature points of a road from the updated possibility grid map; and performing map matching with the high-definition map based on the feature points of the road. However, based on the rejection of claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Demir discloses extracting feature points of a road from the updated possibility grid map; and performing map matching with the high-definition map based on the feature points of the road. (Abstract; FIG 3, FIG 5, 0030, 0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0053, 0055: Discloses converting/transitioning features obtain from a LIDAR map to a HD map. Features, such as road signs, lanes, other objects, etc, are identified from the lidar map and then located and positioned on the HD map)
As per dependent claim 21, Kutila et al discloses obtaining the low-level information using a lidar (0015, 0048; 0058: information obtained using lidar) and generating sensor fusion data by fusing the updated sensor data map and the low-level sensor information of the lidar (0033, 0046: updating map data based on the incoming data) Furthermore, based on the rejection of claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Demir discloses extracting the feature points of the road based on the sensor fusion data. (0047, 0048)
Claim(s) 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutila et al in further view of Demir in further view of Purdy in further view of Korjus et al (US20210397187, EFD 10/14/2019)
As per dependent claims 3-4, Kutila et al discloses determining… whether the sensor occlusion is caused by the vehicle. (Abstract, 0015, 0056: determine that a second vehicle in front of the first vehicle is obstructing their FOV which obstructs regions of the first vehicle) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose determining, based on classification information and motion attribute information of the first sensor data of the second sensor beam section, whether the sensor occlusion is caused by the vehicle and wherein determining whether the sensor occlusion is caused by the vehicle comprises: checking the classification information and the moving attribute information of the first sensor data of the second sensor beam section; and determining that the sensor occlusion is caused by the vehicle when the classification information indicates a car and the moving attribute information indicates moving.
However, Korjus et al discloses a mobile object, a form of a vehicle, detecting other objects, determine that an object is a vehicle (car), and determine that the object/vehicle is moving (based on classification and moving attribute information). (0209, 0214-0218)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the recited features of Korjus et al since it would have provided the benefit ensure safety of the travelling of the vehicle while at the same time having the vehicle autonomously a percentage as high as possible. (0007)
As per dependent claims 15-16, Claims 16 recites similar limitations as in Claims 3-4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutila et al in further view of Demir in further view of Purdy in further view of Uchiyama (US20220343757, EFD 10/9/2019)
As per dependent claim 5, Claim 5 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Kutila et al discloses transmitting one-to-one communication from a vehicle having location information of the target vehicle; and receiving the second sensor data from the target vehicle. (Abstract, 0048, 0055: communicates (form of transmitting)) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose broadcasting a communication ID and GPS-based location information of the host vehicle. However, Uchiyama et al discloses vehicles broadcasting their acquired GPS location together with vehicle ID information. (0443)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the recited features of Uchiyama et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of a simple and effective method of providing identification of the sender of incoming communications.
As per dependent claim 18, Claim 16 recites similar limitations as in Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutila et al in further view of Demir in further view of Purdy in further view of Uchiyama in further view of St. Romain et al (US20210404829, filed 6/29/2020)
As per dependent claim 6, Claim 6 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose calculating confidence based on the at least one of classification information, moving attribute information, data confidence, and sensor measurement value distance information included in the second sensor data; and updating the second sensor data to the possibility data map when the confidence is equal to or greater than a threshold value. However, St. Romain et al discloses obtaining sensor data from a vehicle; obtain map data from the data and comparing the obtained map data to historical/preexisting data. St. Romain et al discloses determining a confidence level based on matching the discrepancy to a database of known discrepancies (form of data confidence quality) and comparing the confidence level to a confidence level threshold, St. Romain et al discloses updating the host map when the confidence level is equal to or greater than the confidence level threshold. (0069, 0077, 0084)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the recited features of St. Romain et al since it would have provided accurate map information that is essential for autonomous or semi-autonomous driving control. (0004)
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutila et al in further view of Demir in further view of Purdy in further view of Uchiyama in further view of St. Romain et al in further view of Funayama et al (US20190064830, 2019)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose calculating higher confidence as a distance of the sensor measurement value distance information becomes shorter. However, Funayama et al discloses calculating a confidence degree as a higher value when the distance to the closest object is shorter than the distance threshold value (0060, 0063)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the recited features of Funayama et al since it would have assure a certain degree of accuracy with regard to such an estimation in the positioning of the host vehicle. (0004)
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutila et al in further view of Demir in further view of Purdy in further view of in further view of St. Romain et al (US20210404829, filed 6/29/2020)
As per dependent claim 17, the cited art fails to specifically disclose calculate a confidence based on the at least one of classification information, moving attribute information, data confidence or sensor measurement value distance information included in the second sensor data; and update the second sensor data in the possibility grid map when the confidence is equal to or greater than a threshold value. However, St. Romain et al discloses obtaining sensor data from a vehicle; obtain map data from the data and comparing the obtained map data to historical/preexisting data. St. Romain et al discloses determining a confidence level based on matching the discrepancy to a database of known discrepancies (form of data confidence quality) and comparing the confidence level to a confidence level threshold, St. Romain et al discloses updating the host map when the confidence level is equal to or greater than the confidence level threshold. (0069, 0077, 0084)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the recited features of St. Romain et al since it would have provided accurate map information that is essential for autonomous or semi-autonomous driving control. (0004)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, in regards to the objection to the Abstract/specification, Applicant states the abstract has been amended to reflect the claimed invention, and between 50 and 150 words and request withdrawal of the objection. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the objection to the specification/abstract remains for the following reason(s): The Examiner respectfully states that the replacement/current abstract is not written in the narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. In other words, The Examiner respectfully states the current Abstract is merely a combination of a number of the limitations from the independent claims slightly reworded. The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant did not provide any explanation how the replacement Abstract is considered in narrative form and not a slight rewording of the claim limitations from the independent claims. As stated, the Examiner respectfully states the abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims and/or written like a claim. Furthermore, it is noted that the entered abstract is merely one long run-on sentence and not grammatically correct. Run-on sentences are discouraged and disrupt the flow of thought and make it harder to understand the intended meaning. The Examiner recommends rewriting the non-entered abstract to not be presented as a run-on sentence and presented in a grammatically correct fashion.
Therefore, the objection to the Abstract remains.
On pages 13-16, in regards to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 13, and 14, Applicant argues that the cited art Kutila, Demir, and Purdy, particular Purdy, in which there is no teaching or suggestion in Purdy, even if somehow combined with Kutila in view of Demir (and taken further in view of Magnusson) of at least calculating an intersection point between a center line of a sensor beam section and first map data for the purpose of determining sensor occlusion. Applicant merely argues that Purdy only discloses sensor occlusion is determined based on sensor data obtained from different sensor beam sections. Thus, Applicant argues that the cited art does teach the subject matter: wherein the first sensor acquires the first sensor data in a form of point data for each of a plurality of sensor beam sections, and wherein determining the vehicle that causes the sensor inclusion comprises: calculating an intersection point for each of the plurality of sensor beam sections, wherein the intersection point is located between a center line of a first sensor beam section, which is one of the plurality of sensor beam sections, and the first map data for the first structure; calculating a distance between the intersection point of the first sensor beam section and the first sensor data of the first sensor beam section; and determining, as a second sensor beam section in which the sensor occlusion has occurred, at least one sensor beam section in which the distance is greater than or equal to a preset distance. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Based on the arguments provided by the Applicant in respect to claimed features in the claim limitation, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states that the cited art, Kutila, Demir, and Purdy, does not teach the limitations by merely stating the cited art doesn’t teach the limitations; therefore, merely concludes that each of the reference do not teach the limitation without any explanation or reasoning how the figures do not teach the claimed matter. Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of the claim limitation is different from the teachings of each of the reference by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how each of the cited art is specifically different from Applicant's invention. Thus, Applicant’s arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitation since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences that involve any supporting evidence from Applicant 's specification stating or describing the limitations, or how the cited art is specifically different from the invention itself. Therefore, the Applicant did not explicitly state how Applicant's invention, other than stating each reference, alone, doesn't teach the limitations, is different to prove that the cited art’s functionality does not equivalently teach the limitation.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that the language “calculating an intersection point for each of the plurality of sensor beam sections, wherein the intersection point is located between a center line of a first sensor beam section, which is one of the plurality of sensor beam sections, and the first map data for the first structure” is broad. The language merely states calculating intersection points but fails to explicitly state how exactly the intersection point is calculated. In addition, the language does not further clarify how exactly the first map data is used in the calculating the intersection point. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Furthermore, the language “calculating a distance between the intersection point of the first sensor beam section and the first sensor data of the first sensor beam section” is broad. The language merely states calculating a distance but fails to explicitly state how exactly the distance is calculated. In addition, the language does not further clarify how exactly the first sensor data is used in the calculating the distance. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references of the cited art is considered functionally equivalent to that which is claimed discussed below.
Thus, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Kutila et al discloses the first sensor acquires the first sensor data in a form of point data for each of a plurality of sensor beam sections, (FIG 2, 0043, 0058, 0071: discloses using LIDAR and FIG 2 shows individual beams (illumination lines) being sent out from each vehicle . One of a skilled artisan would have realized that with LIDAR, the received sensor data, of each of the plurality of beams LIDAR has emitted, would be in the form of point data since LIDAR is used to calculate distances from two points. )
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein determining the vehicle that causes the sensor inclusion comprises: calculating an intersection point for each of the plurality of sensor beam sections, wherein the intersection point is located between a center line of a first sensor beam section, which is one of the plurality of sensor beam sections, and the first map data for the first structure; calculating a distance between the intersection point of the first sensor beam section and the first sensor data of the first sensor beam section; and determining, as a second sensor beam section in which the sensor occlusion has occurred, at least one sensor beam section in which the distance is greater than or equal to a preset distance. (Note: the term “preset distance” is not defined by the claim language and the specification does not provide an explicit definition of what a reference distance is. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied for this term.) However, Purdy discloses transmitting multiple sensor emissions beams from the vehicle (e.g., light pulses) that may or may not reflect off of the objects and back to the sensor(s) of the vehicle; thus, generating sensor data. The sensor data represent at least the locations of the points for which the sensor emissions reflected. In particular, a vehicle transmitting a first beam of many sensor emissions beams (form of center line of a sensor emission/beam) that hits an additional object and reflects back to the sensor of the vehicle. (FIG 2B, 0052) The additional object represents sensor data from the environment, thus, an object of the environment. (0065, 0087, Claim 11) The sensor data is used to determine characteristics of the objects (0023, 0050) The sensor data represents at least the location of the point of reflection. Thus, using the reflection/insertion point, Purdy discloses a first distance between the car (based on the obtained sensor data) and obtained reflection point, such as 240(1) of FIG 2B (0053, 0055). Furthermore, Purdy discloses sending a second beam of many sensor emissions beams that hits object 234 and reflects back to the sensor the vehicle, which is considered a preset distance. Thus, using this reflection/insertion point, Purdy discloses a second distance between the car (based on the obtained sensor data) and obtained the other reflection point, such as 240(2) of FIG 2B (0053, 0055). Purdy then determines if the first distance 240(1) is greater than the second distance 240(2) to determine an area is obstructed. (0090) Thus, when compared, first distance 240(1) is greater than the second distance 240(2)(reference distance) and determining sensor occlusion has occurred.
Therefore, the 103 rejection of Claims 1 and 13-14 remains.
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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights