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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application DE10 2020 113 149.6, filed on 05/14/2020.
Status of Claims
Claims 14-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103
Applicant argues:
(a) Koravadi does not teach or suggest "storing, in a mapping database located outside the
motor vehicle, roadway marking data indicating a presence of roadway markings and associated ground data assigned to a recording location" because Koravadi does not mention storing lane marking data on a system outside the vehicle.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Koravadi discloses/teaches/suggests this feature. [See at least Koravadi, Abstract; ¶ 0027 (“The data transfer or signal communication from the camera to the ECU may comprise any suitable data or communication link, such as a vehicle network bus or the like of the equipped vehicle.”); 0037 (“an autonomous vehicle will also have wireless two way communication with other vehicles or infrastructure, such as via a car2car (V2V) or car2x communication system.”); 0040 (“The system may communicate with other communication systems via any suitable means, such as by utilizing aspects of the systems described in International Publication Nos. WO 2010/144900; WO 2013/043661 and/or WO 2013/081985, and/or U.S. Pat. No. 9,126,525, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.”)]. As mentioned in ¶ 0037 is communicating with other vehicles or infrastructure, thus with a “local” database. Also if gathering map information in order to Navigate, thus that is communicating with a (mapping) database (BRI of the instant claims).
Khlifi also teaches, in a more specific manner this limitation [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0041 (“The method according to the invention is, however, not yet complete, since digital map data are available in a navigation system 25, indicated in FIG. 3, of the motor vehicle 10, from which data supplementary information is supplied for the further evaluation of the lateral distances 24. As supplementary information from the digital map data, roadway division information of the roadway 16 or highway 15 currently being driven is used which includes the number of lanes and section information, wherein the latter describes the presence, the width, and the location of any section of the roadway not being used as a traffic lane 17. To simplify the illustration, a roadway section of this kind is not shown in FIG. 4. A roadway section of this kind could, for example, be a bicycle lane or a hard shoulder.”)]. If gathering map information in order to Navigate, thus that is communicating with a (mapping) database (BRI of the instant claims).
Applicant further argues:
(b) Koravadi does not teach or suggest "retrieving from the mapping database, into a local database within the motor vehicle, ground data and associated roadway marking data for the recording location" because Koravadi does not appear to rely on a mapping database located outside the vehicle for lane marking data or object position data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Koravadi discloses/teaches/suggests this feature. [See at least Koravadi, ¶ 0037 (“Typically, such an autonomous vehicle will also have wireless two way communication with other vehicles or infrastructure, such as via a car2car (V2V) or car2x communication system.”); 0042 (“The system may also communicate with other systems, such as via a vehicle-to-vehicle communication system or a vehicle-to-infrastructure communication system or the like.”)]. Thus, is communicating with other sources and one of those sources could be ground data associated with the roadway.
Khlifi also teaches, this limitation [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0042 (“in particular, country-specific—lane width 26, marked as FS_B in FIG. 4, is also available as further supplementary information, either stored in the digital map data or otherwise available.”)]. Other sources are readily available to gather data for specific areas, thus teaches the BRI of the instant claims.
Applicant further argues:
(c) Koravadi in view of Khlifi does not teach or suggest "based on detection, in image data
from a camera, of a ground covering obscuring roadway markings, comparing using a control device, a current ground structure with one or more ground structures stored in
the ground data in the local database."
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Koravadi discloses/teaches/suggests this feature. [See at least Koravadi, Claim 7; ¶ 0033 (“When the lane markings are missing or snow covered or at night time with heavy rain, the system can still output reliable lane location infatuation utilizing the output 34.”)
Considering that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II)
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(see MPEP 2111.01).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see PMEP 2111).
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koravadi [US20190073541, now Koravadi], with Khlifi [US20180024238, now Khlifi] (Note that this application has the same applicant and inventor as the instant application, but the date of publications is more than 1 year prior to the earliest priority date of the instant application), in view of Huston [US20160259045, now Huston], further in view of Stolarczyk [US20170097440, now Stolarczyk].
Claim 14
Koravadi discloses/suggests a method for locating roadway markings by a motor vehicle [see at least Koravadi, ¶ 0005 (“a method and apparatus to detect the lane location reliably even in the bad weather conditions and even when the lane marking on the surface of the road is missing due to wear and tear of the road surface…The system can detect these objects or elements embedded below the road surface even in bad weather conditions and even where there are worn or no lane markings conditions.”); 0012 – 0025 (“10—Subject vehicle [0013] 12—Front windshield camera [0014] 14—Windshield of vehicle [0015] 16—Non-vision sensing system [0016] 18—Ground penetrating radar or equivalent device [0017] 20—Front windshield camera detection range [0018] 22—Lane marking [0019] 24—Missing lane marking [0020] 26—Lane marking objects or elements embedded under the road surface [0021] 28—Road, including portion of the road below the road surface [0022] 28a—Road surface [0023] 30—Ground penetrating radar device detection range [0024] 32—Sensor fusion [0025] 34—Lane marking objects detection”); Having the structure to accomplish the scope of this claim in its BRI.], the method comprising:
directing a ground penetrating radar sensor of the motor vehicle at ground being driven over; determining ground data describing a ground structure of the ground being driven over by evaluating radar data from the ground penetrating radar sensor [see at least Koravadi, Fig. 5; ¶ 0012-0025 (“FIG. 4 illustrates the side view of the reliable lane detection mechanism of the present invention, showing both the camera or vision system and the radar or non-vision system.”); Making it easier to interpret the conditions and the markings on the roadway];
storing, in a mapping database located outside the motor vehicle, roadway marking data indicating a presence of roadway markings and associated ground data assigned to a recording location [see at least Koravadi, abstract (“A control includes at least one processor operable to process image data captured by the camera and sensor data captured by the non-vision based sensor…”); Figs. 2-5; [See at least Koravadi, Abstract; ¶ 0042 (“ stored in the digital map data or otherwise available”);
retrieving from the mapping database, into a local database within the motor vehicle, ground data and associated roadway marking data for the recording location; based on detection, in image data from a camera, of a ground covering obscuring roadway markings [see at least Koravadi, ¶ 0026; ¶ 0027 (“The data transfer or signal communication from the camera to the ECU may comprise any suitable data or communication link, such as a vehicle network bus or the like of the equipped vehicle.”); 0033; 0037;. As mentioned in ¶ 0037 is communicating with other vehicles or infrastructure, thus with a “local” database. Also if gathering map information in order to Navigate, thus that is communicating with a (mapping) database (BRI of the instant claims); 0031 (“the subject vehicle 10 is equipped with ground penetrating radar or equivalent sensing device 18, which can detect the road-embedded lane marking elements or objects 26 at least partially embedded below the surface 28a of the road 28 and has a detection range (see region 30); FIG. 4];
based on detection, in image data from a camera, of a ground covering obscuring roadway markings, comparing using a control device, a current ground structure with one or more ground structures stored in the ground data in the mapping local database [see at least Koravadi, ¶ 0027; 0033; 0037; 0040 (“The system may communicate with other communication systems via any suitable means”)].
Khlifi more specifically teaches based on detection, in image data from a camera, of a ground covering obscuring roadway markings, comparing using a control device, a current ground structure with one or more ground structures stored in the ground data in the local database [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0022 (“The robustness of this procedure can be increased even further if the measured lateral distances, the roadway widths derived from these, and the supplementary information are checked against each other for plausibility… comparing the roadway widths determined from the radar data and/or a plausibility check of the number of lanes and/or the lane width as plausibility check values by obtaining comparison values from the roadway width…and from the other plausibility check value in each case. In this way, a check is ultimately carried out as to whether the supplementary information can actually constitute a description of the roadway as measured by the radar sensors.”); ¶ 0041 (“digital map data are available in a navigation system 25, indicated in FIG. 3…As supplementary information from the digital map data, roadway division information of the roadway 16 or highway 15 currently being driven is used…”)]; and
in the event of a match found in the comparing, using the roadway marking data associated with the ground data of the matching ground structure [see at least Khlifi, Claim 10 (“wherein a roadway width is determined from the lateral distances and a width of the motor vehicle stored in the motor vehicle and/or from the distance of the roadway boundaries, wherein a plausibility check is carried out comparing the roadway widths determined from the radar data with each other, and/or a plausibility check is made of the number of lanes and/or the lane width as plausibility check values by obtaining comparison values from the roadway width, the section information (if available)…”); ¶ 0022].
Khlifi also teaches storing, in a mapping database, roadway marking data indicating a presence of roadway markings and associated ground data assigned to a recording location [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0010 (“cover the surroundings of the motor vehicle over a complete angular range of 360°. In this way, an extremely large database is obtained for determining the position of the roadway boundary, thus, in particular, making it possible to re-determine the transverse-position information afresh in every measurement cycle of the radar sensors, once data for a certain length of the roadway are in any case available…”); 0022; 0041; Thus, storing, evaluating and gathering roadway data. ] and
directing radar sensors [see at least Khlifi, abstract].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Huston also teaches directing ground penetrating radar senser [see at least Huston, abstract (“An improved Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) system is provided…while producing a robust information detection signal… testing for subsurface tomographic imaging.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi, further with the more robust ground penetrating Radar of Huston. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Neither Koravadi, Khlifi or Huston specifically teach but Stolarczyk teaches illumination, from a changing angle, a ground structure by the ground penetrating radar sensor [see at least Stolarczyk, ¶ 0007 (“Gradiometric ground penetrating radar (gGPR) instrumentation and signal processing functionality takes the spatial or time domain derivative of phase-coherent illuminating and scattered/reflection radar signals...”); Thus is illuminating as described in the instant SPEC is a similar process.].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi, with the more robust ground penetrating Radar of Huston, further with the advance technology of ground penetrating radar illustrated in Stolarczyk. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Claim 15
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 14.
Koravadi further discloses/teaches/suggests the ground penetrating radar [see at least Koravadi ¶ 0007-0008 (“[0007] Ground Penetrating Radar (“GPR”) systems are used to make measurements of different structures in the ground”)].
Huston also teaches the ground penetrating radar sensor has at least one of a penetration depth of at least 0.5 m, a carrier frequency between about 1 MHz and about 1 GHz, or a frequency bandwidth of at least 250 MHz [see at least Huston, ¶ 0007 (“Ground Penetrating Radar (“GPR”) systems are used to make measurements of different structures in the ground… typically in the frequency range from 1 MHz to 10 GHz;…; 0012-0013 (“The depth of penetration through most materials is a function of the operating frequency (or wavelength)…”); Note that all the parameters of Houston fulfill the requirements of this limitation.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi, further with the more robust ground penetrating Radar of Huston. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Claim 16
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 14.
Koravadi further discloses/suggests the ground penetrating radar sensor uses a pulse radar or a continuous wave radar [see at least Koravadi ¶ 0007-0008 (“[0007] Ground Penetrating Radar (“GPR”) systems… Each system incorporates a transmitter having an antenna that radiates or emir a short pulse of radio frequency typically in the frequency range from 1 MHz to 10 GHz; …”)].
Claim 17
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 14.
Koravadi further discloses the directing the ground penetrating radar sensor further comprises: orienting the ground penetrating radar sensor perpendicularly to a direction of travel, wherein the ground penetrating radar sensor uses a synthetic aperture [see at least Koravadi, ¶ 0073 (“A pair of Good Impedance Match Antennas (GIMA)… for use in Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) NDE of concrete structures…with sufficient resolution to determine the location and magnitude of the defects, such as deterioration and delamination...”)]
Khlifi also teaches this limitation [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0009 (“it is therefore possible to make a good estimate of the transverse position of a motor vehicle on the roadway using only a high-resolution radar system with at least one radar sensor, without the need to use image processing of camera data or related technologies. In this case, the radar sensor is not used in order to detect lane markings, but rather to extract the roadway boundary from the radar data, and, from this, to obtain the distances to the left-hand and right-hand roadway boundaries...”)]. Note that what the aperture is made of is a design feature so has no patentable weight.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Claim 18
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 14.
Koravadi further discloses/suggests assigning, in the mapping database, to the ground data and the roadway marking data associated with the ground data, at least one of absolute position information or position information relating to a digital map [see at least Koravadi, Fig. 1A; ¶ 0031 (“subject vehicle 10 is equipped with ground penetrating radar or equivalent sensing device 18, which can detect the road-embedded lane marking elements or objects 26 at least partially embedded below the surface 28a of the road 28.”)].
Khlifi also teaches this limitation [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0003 (“position information of the lane assignment makes it possible to make a better interpretation of certain driving maneuvers and/or critical driving situations…”); 0009-0010 (“With the aid of the present invention, it is therefore possible to make a good estimate of the transverse position of a motor vehicle on the roadway using only a high-resolution radar system with at least one radar sensor…Evaluation of the radar data in this regard is widely known in the prior art... In this way, an extremely large database is obtained for determining the position of the roadway boundary, thus, in particular, making it possible to re-determine the transverse-position information afresh in every measurement cycle of the radar sensors…”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Claim 19
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 18.
Koravadi does not specifically disclose but Khlifi teaches the comparing the current ground structure with one or more ground structures in the mapping database further comprises: restricting, for use in the comparing, an amount of data to an area around a current position information of the motor vehicle [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0026 (“The transverse-position information can, for example, be used for conducting a plausibility check for a lane assignment on the basis of the camera data of a camera and/or as a fallback level when selecting the camera...”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Claim 20
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 19.
Koravadi does not specifically disclose/suggest but Khlifi does teach the comparing the current ground structure with one or more ground structures in the mapping database further comprises: retrieving, from the mapping database, data to form a local database for use in the comparing, wherein the mapping database is located outside the motor vehicle, and wherein the data describing the area and/or a region encompassing the position of the motor vehicle [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0010; 0025 (“transverse-position information be restricted to at least one type of road—in particular, freeways… Further types of road which are appropriate for application of the method according to the invention are highways with several lanes in one direction, multiple lanes in city traffic, and the like. Information as to the highway type can, for example, also be obtained from the digital map data in a navigation system.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Claim 21
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 14.
Koravadi does not specially disclose/suggest but Khlifi does teach the evaluating the radar data includes abstracting the ground structure described by the radar data to thereby reduce the amount of data [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0009].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Huston also teaches this limitation and the limiting feature [see at least Huston, ¶ 0022 (“extract useful detection information while significantly reducing the number of launch signals needed…”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi, further with the more robust ground penetrating Radar of Huston. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Claim 22
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 21.
Koravadi disclosed assigning the reflection objects that have been included, an object class by classification, the object class being at least one of a crack class or an inclusion object class [see at least Koravadi, Abstract; Fig. 2; ¶ 0008 – 0024].
Note: if detecting objects with numerous sensors, they would be identified. Which is a similar concept as classification as described in the instant Specification.
Koravadi does not specifically disclose/suggest but Khlifi does teach the determining the ground data incudes using reflection objects that meet a relevance criterion, wherein the relevance criterion requires at least one of a minimum size or a minimum reflectivity, or the method further comprises: [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0008; 0035 (“The radar sensors…They can accordingly be fitted so as to save space…to make possible an angular resolution in two directions, so that features surveyed by reflection can be assigned in their three-dimensional position in space. In addition, as appropriate for their purpose, the radar sensors 1 are wide-angle radar sensors.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Claim 23
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 14.
Koravadi further discloses evaluating the current roadway marking data to determine at least one of a lane width, a roadway width, a number of lanes, or a lane assignment for the host vehicle and/or at least one other road user [see at least Koravadi, Claim 1 (“A method for acquiring transverse-position information of a motor vehicle on a roadway wherein radar data describing at least part of the roadway is acquired by at least one radar sensor of the motor vehicle, environmental features describing the location of a roadway boundary are detected and localized in the radar data by evaluation, from these, a course of the roadway boundaries of the roadway and lateral distances of the motor vehicle with respect to the roadway boundaries are determined…“); ¶ 0027 (“In particular, in this context, assigning a confidence value to the transverse-position information may be envisaged…”)].
Claim 24
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 14.
Koravadi further discloses evaluating the roadway marking data for a vehicle system, the being at least one of a driver assistance system or a vehicle system designed for at least partially automatic driving [see at least Koravadi, abstract (“evaluation”); 0002 (“In order to determine a lane assignment of this kind, the camera data of a camera directed at the area ahead of the motor vehicle are normally evaluated.”); 0008 (“evaluation of radar data”)].
Claim 25
Koravadi, Khlifi, Huston and Stolarczyk disclose/teach/suggest the limitations of Claim 14.
Koravadi further discloses determining, during at least one trip, using the motor vehicle and/or at least one structurally identical motor vehicle, ground data and roadway marking data to thereby generate the mapping database [see at least Koravadi, Abstract; ¶ 0024 (“Sensor fusion”); 0034-0035 (“[0034] To reduce processing requirements, the system of the present invention may utilize the image data captured by the camera as a default way of detecting lane markers and determining the lanes of the road. (when the lane markers are exposed and viewable by the camera), and may not utilize the radar sensor in such situations (when the camera is capable of detecting lane markers). When it is determined that the lane markers are worn or obscured or not viewable, the system may utilize the sensor data sensed by the ground penetrating radar sensor to detect the lane objects or elements embedded in or disposed on or in the road. [0035] The system may provide an output indicative of the determined lane or lanes (as determined based on processing of the captured image data or processing of the captured sensor data). The output is provided to a driving assist system of the vehicle…Optionally, the output may be provided to an autonomous vehicle control system…”)].
Khlifi teaches storing in association with one another in the mapping database, roadway marking data and ground data that are assigned to a same recording location, and indicate the presence of roadway markings [see at least Khlifi, ¶ 0042 (“[0042] A—in particular, country-specific—lane width 26, marked as FS_B in FIG. 4, is also available as further supplementary information, either stored in the digital map data or otherwise available…”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the lane determining system using ground penetrating radar of Koravadi, with the information of vehicles on a roadway of Khlifi. Providing a safer and more effective and efficient technique for determining road markings and making those findings available to mapping or other databases to navigation and mapping systems.
Claim 26
Claim 26 is the apparatuses for the method of Claim 14, thus has similar limitations to claim 14, therefore claim 26 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270=7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK KOPPIKAR, can be reached at (571) 272-5109. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3667
(571) 270-7952