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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide adequate supports for limitation “determining an approximation of the initial pose of the vehicle while the vehicle remains static within the detection region”. Applicant in the response filed 07/01/2025 indicate support shown in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0063] of the published instant application; however, none of Fig. 1 and paragraph [0063] explicitly state “vehicle remains static” during the claimed step of determining within “detection region”. Fig. 1 and paragraph [0063] only state initial pose of the vehicle can be determined by the external sensor within detection region, but do/does not explicitly state whether the vehicle is static or stationary.
Claims 2-9 are rejected since they are directly or indirectly depend(s) on claim 1.
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0298836 A1) in view of Matsunaga (US 2020/0223430 A1) and Imazu (US 2022/0230543 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method for self-localization of a vehicle in a parking structure, comprising:
detecting the vehicle when the vehicle and located in a detection region of the vehicle-external sensor system (e.g. Fig. 1: S10 & S30); and
determining an initial pose of the vehicle, by the at least one vehicle computer unit, in dependence on the position information (e.g. Fig. 1: S50 & S60 and Fig. 4 and [0016, 0081-0088]).
Kim fails to disclose, but Matsunaga teaches detecting the vehicle, by a vehicle-external sensor system of the parking structure that includes an evaluation unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 20 & [0017]), when the vehicle and located in a detection region (e.g. Fig. 2: entrance and start area, where vehicle is static before the gate is opened) of the vehicle-external sensor system and oriented in an initial pose (e.g. [0027, 0043] & Fig. 1: 110, 120);
relaying position information regarding the detection region, in dependence on detection of the vehicle, by a vehicle-external communication interface of the parking structure connected to the evaluation unit (e.g. Figs. 1-2: 20) or the vehicle-external sensor system (e.g. Figs. 1-2: Since the apparatus 20 is capable of transmitting position information to the vehicle 10, the apparatus 20 inherently discloses a communication interface, connected to the apparatus 20, for transmitting the position information), to at least one vehicle computer unit (e.g. [0027, 0046]).
In addition, since Kim discloses the vehicle computer unit determines an initial pose of the vehicle in dependence on the position information (e.g. Fig. 1: S50 & S60 and Fig. 4 and [0016, 0081-0088]), and Matsunaga teaches the position information is relayed from an evaluation unit of the parking structure to the vehicle computer unit. The combination of Kim and Matsunaga discloses the limitation: determining an initial pose of the vehicle, by transmission of data from the evaluation unit to the at least one vehicle computer unit via the vehicle-external communication interface, in dependence on the position information.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Matsunaga to determine and relay vehicle initial position from parking management to the vehicle so as to guide the vehicle to a targeted parking space with accuracy. In addition, Kim discloses utilizing GPS to determine vehicle position and Matsunaga teaches utilizing camera to determine vehicle initial position and posture/direction. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace GPS with camera sensing since it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR.
Kim and Matsunaga in combination fails to disclose, but Imazu teaches determining the initial pose of the vehicle includes refining the approximation of the initial pose of the vehicle based on information obtained by detecting one or more markers (e.g. Fig. 2: LM) of the parking structure via an environment sensor system of the vehicle (e.g. [0018, 0038]: compare landmarks information from a map with landmarks detected by in-vehicle camera) to enhance accuracy of the determination of the initial pose (inherent results of the step of refining).
Matsunaga teaches the initial pose is determined by sensor data, and Imazu teaches the initial pose is known to be determined by environment sensor. Since the claim and the disclosure do not explain how “refining” is being done, and the claim recite “to enhance reliability…through redundancy”. The “refining” is broadly interpreted as the sensor data and the environment sensor supplement each other to enhance reliability through redundancy. It would be obvious to use plurality of sensors to determine the initial pose since the plurality of sensors are known in the art for determining pose of a vehicle as taught by Matsunaga and Imazu. Therefore, the combination of Matsunaga and Imazu teaches “such that the initial pose of the vehicle within the detection region is determined by a combination of sensor data obtained from the vehicle-external sensor system and sensor data obtained from the environment sensor system provided on the vehicle to enhance reliability of the determination of the initial pose through redundancy”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim and Matsunaga with the teachings of Imazu to further determine vehicle position with landmarks detection and comparison so as to increase the accuracy of vehicle position determination.
In addition, combination of Kim, Matsunaga and Imazu discloses determining of the approximation of the initial pose of the vehicle while the vehicle remains static within the detection region, since Matsunaga discloses/teaches the determination occurs at entrance before the gate opens.
Regarding claim 2, Kim and Matsunaga in combination fails to disclose, but Imazu teaches environment sensor data is generated by the environment sensor system of the vehicle, representing an environment of the vehicle; after the vehicle moves from the initial pose (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0018]: continuous update position of the vehicle based on its position relative to the plurality of markers LM), a landmark (e.g. Fig. 2: plurality of LM, each could be the claimed marker and landmark) in the environment is detected by the at least one vehicle computer unit based on the environment sensor data, the landmark being separate and distinct from the one or more markers of the parking structure used to refine the initial pose of the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0018]: continuous update position of the vehicle based on its position relative to the plurality of markers LM); the detected landmark is compared by the at least one vehicle computer unit against a digital map (e.g. [0018]: compare landmarks information from a map with landmarks detected by in-vehicle camera); and a detected current pose of the vehicle is determined by the at least one vehicle computer unit depending on the initial pose and the result of the comparison (e.g. [0038]: determine vehicle position).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim and Matsunaga with the teachings of Imazu to further determine vehicle position with landmarks detection and comparison so as to increase the accuracy of vehicle position determination.
Regarding claim 3, Imazu teaches in the course of the comparing of the detected landmark against the digital map, two or more reference landmarks that are stored in the digital map are identified (e.g. Fig. 2: LM & Fig. 3: S101); depending on the initial pose, precisely one of the two or more reference landmarks is selected; and the detected current pose is determined based on the selected reference landmark (e.g. Fig. 3 & [0038]: utilizing landmarks to determine vehicle position).
Regarding claim 4, Imazu teaches the digital map is relayed by the vehicle- external communication interface to the at least one vehicle computer unit (e.g. [0017-0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Matsunaga teaches a camera image is generated by a camera of the vehicle external sensor system, the image depicting the vehicle, in order to detect the vehicle in the detection region (e.g. Fig. 2: 110, 120 & [0027, 0043]).
Regarding claim 8, Matsunaga teaches based on the camera image, a relative position of the vehicle in the camera image and/or a relative orientation of the vehicle in the camera image is identified; and the initial pose of the vehicle is determined in dependence on the relative position and/or the relative orientation (e.g. [0018, 0027, 0033]: determine posture of vehicle based on camera image).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0298836 A1) in view of Matsunaga (US 2020/0223430 A1) and Imazu (US 2022/0230543 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugano (US 2021/0171019 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim, Matsunaga and Imazu in combination fails to disclose, but Sugano teaches an electromagnetic signal is emitted in the direction of the vehicle by a signal source of the vehicle external sensor system; portions of the electromagnetic signal reflected by the vehicle are detected by a detector of the vehicle-external sensor system; and the vehicle is detected in the detection region in dependence on the detected reflected portions (e.g. [0072]: LIDAR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim, Matsunaga and Imazu with the teachings of Sugano to utilize LIDAR to determine position of a vehicle since it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0298836 A1) in view of Matsunaga (US 2020/0223430 A1) and Imazu (US 2022/0230543 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murphy (US 5,921,036).
Regarding claim 6, Kim, Matsunaga and Imazu in combination fails to disclose, but Murphy teaches a light beam is emitted in the direction of the vehicle by a signal source of the vehicle external sensor system; an interruption of the light beam by the vehicle is recognized by the vehicle-external sensor system in order to detect the vehicle in the detection region (e.g. Fig. 3, 66, 68, 132, 134 & col 9 lines 20-29).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kim, Matsunaga and Imazu with the teachings of Murphy to utilizes light beams to determine presence of a vehicle in a detection region since it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0298836 A1) in view of Matsunaga (US 2020/0223430 A1) and Imazu (US 2022/0230543 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2019/0213883 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim, Matsunaga and Imazu in combination fails to disclose, but Kim (‘883) teaches a user interface (e.g. Fig. 8: 211) is actuated in order to open a device (e.g. Fig. 8: 214) blocking a roadway for the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 8: 100); the actuating of the user interface is detected by the vehicle-external sensor system (e.g. Fig. 8: 212), in order to detect the vehicle in the detection region.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parking garage of Kim, Matsunaga and Imazu withe a ticket issuing unit at the entrance of a parking garage as taught by Kim (‘883) so as to keep track of the duration the vehicle has been parked within the parking garage.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (US 2020/0223430 A1) in view of Kim (US 2020/0298836 A1) and Imazu (US 2022/0230543 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Matsunaga discloses a system for self-localization of a vehicle in a parking structure (e.g. Fig. 2), comprising: a vehicle-external sensor system (e.g. Fig. 2: 110, 120) that includes an evaluation unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 20 & [0017]), which is adapted to detect the vehicle when the vehicle and located in a detection region of the vehicle-external sensor system and oriented in an initial pose (e.g. Fig. 2: entrance and start area, where vehicle before the gate is opened); and at least one vehicle computer unit as well as a vehicle-external communication interface (e.g. [0046]: vehicle inherently discloses controller and memory for storing initial position sent from parking management apparatus 20, and parking management apparatus 20 inherently discloses a communication interface so as to send instruction to the vehicle) connected to the evaluation unit (e.g. Figs. 1-2: 20) or the vehicle-external sensor system (e.g. Figs. 1-2: Since the apparatus 20 is capable of transmitting position information to the vehicle 10, the apparatus 20 inherently discloses a communication interface, connected to the apparatus 20, for transmitting the position information), which is adapted to relay position information regarding the detection region to the at least one vehicle computer unit in dependence on the detection of the vehicle (e.g. [0046]).
Matsunaga fails to disclose, but Kim teaches the at least one vehicle computer unit is adapted to determine an approximation of the initial pose of the vehicle in dependence on the position information (e.g. Fig. 1: S50 & S60 and Fig. 4 and [0016, 0081-0088]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Matsunaga with the teachings of Kim to precisely determine vehicle’s pose and activate automated valet parking by the vehicle with accuracy.
Matsunaga and Kim in combination fails to disclose, but Imazu teaches an environment sensor system provided on the vehicle (e.g. [0018]: camera of the vehicle), the environment sensor system configure to detect one or more markers (e.g. Fig. 2: LM) of the parking structure; wherein the at least one vehicle computer unit is adapted to refine the approximation of the initial pose of the vehicle based on information obtained by the detection of the one or more markers of the parking structure via the environment sensor system of the vehicle (e.g. [0018, 0038]: compare landmarks information from a map with landmarks detected by in-vehicle camera) to enhance accuracy of the determination of the initial pose (inherent result of the step of refining).
Matsunaga teaches the initial pose is determined by sensor data, and Imazu teaches the initial pose is known to be determined by environment sensor. Since the claim and the disclosure do not explain how “refining” is being done, and the claim recite “to enhance reliability…through redundancy”. The “refining” is broadly interpreted as the sensor data and the environment sensor supplement each other to enhance reliability through redundancy. It would be obvious to use plurality of sensors to determine the initial pose since the plurality of sensors are known in the art for determining pose of a vehicle as taught by Matsunaga and Imazu. Therefore, the combination of Matsunaga and Imazu teaches “such that the initial pose of the vehicle within the detection region is determined by a combination of sensor data obtained from the vehicle-external sensor system and sensor data obtained from the environment sensor system provided on the vehicle to enhance reliability of the determination of the initial pose through redundancy”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Matsunaga and Kim with the teachings of Imazu to further determine vehicle position with landmarks detection and comparison so as to increase the accuracy of vehicle position determination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 regarding the newly added limitation and “refining”, the examiner disagrees with the arguments.
Matsunaga teaches the initial pose is determined by sensor data, and Imazu teaches the initial pose is known to be determined by environment sensor. Since the claim and the disclosure do not explain how “refining” is being done, and the claim recite “to enhance reliability…through redundancy”. The “refining” is broadly interpreted as the sensor data and the environment sensor supplement each other to enhance reliability through redundancy. It would be obvious to use plurality of sensors to determine the initial pose since the plurality of sensors are known in the art for determining pose of a vehicle as taught by Matsunaga and Imazu. Therefore, the combination of Matsunaga and Imazu teaches “such that the initial pose of the vehicle within the detection region is determined by a combination of sensor data obtained from the vehicle-external sensor system and sensor data obtained from the environment sensor system provided on the vehicle to enhance reliability of the determination of the initial pose through redundancy”.
Claims 2-9 are unpatentable in view of the foregoing reasons regarding claim 1, and rejections set forth in the current Office action since there is no separate arguments presented for these claims.
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 KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571)270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688