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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on July 28, 2025. Claims 1-14 are currently pending. Claims 13-14 are new.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/JP2020/040670, filed in Japan on October 29, 2020, and a copy of said foreign priority document was placed in the file wrapper on April 20, 2023, and thus the effective filing date of the instant application’s claims is October 29, 2020.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on July 28, 2025 have rendered the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) moot, therefore the interpretation is withdrawn. Further, the amendments have overcome the 35 USC 101 and prior art rejections of the non-final office action dated January 28 ,2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant claims the amended claims do not discloses nor teach relearning a model if the first motion analysis data is not in the set confidence interval. However, the examiner disagrees for the reasons stated below. Therefore the prior art rejection is maintained.
Remaining arguments are essentially the same as the ones addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasoning.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites A motion estimation method performed by a motion estimation apparatus, wherein the motion estimation apparatus...comprising:… Since claim 5 is directed to a method, the examiner believes the word apparatus is not appropriate. Therefore the claim should read A motion estimation apparatus, wherein the motion estimation method…comprises:…
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 5 & 6 are 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 5 recites A motion estimation method performed by a motion estimation apparatus, wherein… which is a method claim, however the remainder of the claim limitations are written as if the claim were an apparatus claim. Therefore the claim should be re-written as a method if it is intended to be a method claim. For examination on merits, claim 5 will be interpreted as method steps.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0126864 A1, to Moustafa et al., hereafter Moustafa (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 1, as shown above, Moustafa discloses A motion estimation apparatus comprising: first sensors measure a state of a mobile object, the mobile object being an autonomous vehicle or an autonomous robot (Moustafa [0369] & Fig. 38, Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses sensors, 3855A-3855E, which can collect vehicle information such as tire pressure, throttle, steering, and brake information);
second sensors measure a state of surrounding unknown a first environment of the mobile object (Moustafa [0369] & Fig. 38, Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses sensors , 3855A-3855E, for collecting information such as road condition (i.e. environment sensors));
one or more memories storing instructions and a model; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (Moustafa [0368]-[0370], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses a memory for running a vehicle behavior model, 3819 & 3859)):
analyze mobile object state data measured by each of the first sensors, and generate first motion analysis data representing actual motion of a mobile object in a first environment (Moustafa [0383]-[0384] & Fig. 41, Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses sensor fusion models (i.e. first motion analysis) to determine motion tracking and planning for a vehicle in an environment (i.e. first environment) for a vehicle behavior model);
analyze environment state data measured by each of the second sensors, and generate environment analysis data representing a state of the first environment (Moustafa [0315], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses analyzing metadata associated with sensor data of an environment (e.g. elevation, temperature, & weather). [0375] This environmental data is used to provide information such as road conditions, weather forecast, time of day, and traffic conditions (i.e. state of the first environment));
input the environment analysis data to the model for estimating motion of the mobile object in the first environment, and estimate the motion of the mobile object in the first environment (Moustafa [0376], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses using a regression model to determine what the vehicle is doing and predicts what it will do (i.e. estimating the motion of the mobile object in the first environment); and
set a confidence interval, based on motion estimation result data estimated by the model (Moustafa [0397], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses outputting a probability (e.g. 95%) upon a motion change and regression determines if it’s within the limits (i.e. confidence interval) or a threshold), and
if the first motion analysis data is not in the set confidence interval, instructing a learning device for learning the model to relearn the model (Moustafa [0397]-[0398, Examiner Note: Moustafa determines if the Middle Markov Model (HMM) is outside the 95% probability thresholds, some of the results can be used for retraining (i.e. relearning) the vehicle behavior model).
Regarding Claim 2, Moustafa discloses The motion estimation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to,
Moustafa further discloses learn the model using the first motion analysis data (Moustafa [0788], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses using data that has been processed through fusion algorithms (i.e. first motion analysis data) and train an ML model),
second motion analysis data generated for each of known second environments in the past (Moustafa [0322], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses generating a second heatmap (i.e. second motion analysis data for a second environment) for a known (i.e. past) environment), and
a similarity of geological features for each position in the first environment and the second environments (Moustafa [0315], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses the geographical data being environmental information which indicate environmental contexts such as elevation (i.e. geological features) for additional environments than the first (i.e. second environments)).
With respect to Claim 3, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 3 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1 aside from where shown below. Therefore, claim3 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Moustafa further discloses generate information for controlling movement of the mobile object, based on the motion estimation result data and the path data, and control the mobile object to move from the current position to the destination (Moustafa [0384] & Fig. 41, Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses using the prediction information (i.e. estimation result data), sensor fusion data, and maps (i.e. path data) to control the vehicle to its destination); and
in the current position, if the motion estimation result data is higher than a risk threshold, generates the path data since the path is to be modified, or in the current position, if the motion estimation result data is equal to or lower than the risk threshold, the path is not to be modified (Moustafa [0300]-[0302], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses when updating an HD map, there is a trust score determined based on the trustworthiness of the data from other vehicles. If the trust score is below a threshold, the map is not updated, if it is above the threshold, it is updated).
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 4 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 4 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 5 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 6, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 6 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 6 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to Claim 7, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 7 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 7 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to Claim 8, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 8 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 8 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to Claim 9, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to Claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to Claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, Moustafa discloses The motion estimation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to,
Moustafa further discloses calculate similarity between the first environment and known second environments using the first motion analysis data and second motion analysis data generated for each of known the second environments in the past, learn the model using the calculated similarity and the models learned in the respective the second environments (Moustafa [0431], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses training models based on the scores collected. [0322] discloses comparing multiple score values from heatmaps (i.e. multiple environments) which will be sent to the model for training).
Regarding Claim 14, Moustafa discloses The motion estimation apparatus according to claim 1,
Moustafa further discloses wherein the model is composed of a first model that inputs topographic information to estimate motion (Moustafa [0384], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses the sensor fusion model (i.e. first model) using high definition maps (i.e. topographic information) in order to determine motion) and
a second model that inputs positional information and geological features to estimate motion (Moustafa [0375], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses a regression model (i.e. second model) which uses location of the vehicle (i.e. positional information) and environmental data (i.e. geological features) and data from motion sensors to estimate motion), and
the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to, calculate a product or a sum of an estimation result of the first model and an estimation result of the second model, and the calculated result is used as an estimation result of the model (Moustafa [0394], Examiner Note: Moustafa discloses combining (i.e. product or sum) the regression model with other models (i.e. sensor fusion model) to predict motion).
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3666