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 .
Response to Arguments
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claims based on anticipation by Mousain stands.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21, 27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Mousain (full citation provided herein). The Applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the amendment, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant disputes the meaning of the following paragraph from Mousain:
[0090] In the event of a validation fault, a step of correcting the data provided by the one or more other information sources may be implemented.
The Applicant contends that “provided by” in paragraph 90 means “supplied by” and not “implemented by.” (Response 11). To be clear, the Examiner never said that provided means implemented—those are the Applicant’s words. Nevertheless, under the Applicant understanding of “provided by,” Mousain’s disclosure anticipates the claimed invention, because the one or more other information sources still “supply” the “step of correcting the data.”
The Applicant argues that interpreting “provided by” as “implemented by” in paragraph 90 would make “paragraph [0090] redundant at best, and a nonsensical tautology at worst.” (Response 11). This argument is not persuasive for three reasons.
First, it is a strawman mischaracterization of the rejection. Again, the rejection never says that “provided by” means “implemented by.” The Applicant cannot rebut a rejection by attacking a nonexistent version of that rejection.
Second, the Applicant’s argument about “redundant” language is attempting to interpret paragraph 90 the way a court would interpret a statute, insisting that we apply the statutory canon against surplusage. This approach has multiple problems. For one, paragraph 90 is not a statute. Patent specifications are not interpreted using the rules that courts use to interpret statutes, because those rules specifically exist to self-restrain the judiciary from rewriting the law. In fact, the Federal Circuit has even said that “surplusage may exist in some claims.” ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Technology LLC, 629 F. 3d 1278, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Patent specifications are to be read the way a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand them.
Third, and to that end, it is the Applicant’s understanding of paragraph 90 is the one that is nonsensically redundant, not the Examiner’s, because under the Applicant’s interpretation, paragraph 90 instructs the person of ordinary skill to correct data that is already correct. That is, when paragraph 90 describes a step of correcting the data provided by “the one or more other information sources,” those “one or more other information sources” are “other” in the sense that they are the only ones to survive the validation fault. So, under the Applicant’s reading of paragraph 90, after checking all of the information sources and finding that one source of information is invalid, Mousain would be instructing the skilled artisan to perform the extra step of correcting the other information sources—the ones deemed correct by the validation process—rather than using the valid information sources to correct for the invalid information source. That is nonsensical; it does not make sense to correct data that is already known to be correct.
The more accurate reading of paragraph 90, and the one advanced by the rejection, is that, “[i]n the event of a validation fault,” we need to “correct[] the data” about the vehicle’s position by using only “the other information sources,” instead of the information source deemed faulty. This is exactly what claim 1 recites.
Accordingly, since Mousain continues to anticipate at least claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21, 27, and 30, the rejection stands.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based on the Zavoli-Wang combination is now a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection over Zavoli.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9–11, 17, 19–21, 27, 29, and 30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0270614 A1 (“Zavoli”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0239352 A1 (“Wang”). In response, the Applicant broadened the scope of the independent claims by removing the limitation that was missing from Zavoli. Accordingly, Zavoli now anticipates these claims, and a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection is provided for that reason.
The Applicant’s remarks do not address Zavoli or Wang. In fact, the Applicant’s remarks seem to acknowledge that “Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 17, 19-21, 27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0270614 (Zavoli) in view of Wang,” but then argue “that claims 1, 7, 9- 11, 17, 19-21, 27, 29, and 30 were not rejected in the FOA based on Zavoli in view of Wang.” (Response 12). This seems to be a typographical error, and in any case, those claims were rejected over Zavoli and Wang in both the Final Office Action (page 10, paragraph 46) and the Advisory Action upon entry of the After Final Amendment (page 13, paragraph 61).
Since the Applicant does not explain why it believes the current amendment overcomes this rejection, the amendment is noncompliant with 37 C.F.R § 1.111. Since the omission appears to be bona fide, this Office Action will “simply reiterate the rejection, objection, or requirement not addressed by the amendment,” consistent with current practice. MPEP § 714.03. In this case, the rejection is “reiterated” as a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, since Wang is no longer needed to show the obviousness of the limitation removed by the amendment.
In view of the foregoing and the rejections that follow, all of the claims stand rejected, and therefore, the Applicant’s request for a notice of allowance (Response 13) is respectfully denied.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claim 31 for having the following informality: the claim is missing a transitional phrase on line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
I. Mousain discloses claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21, 27, and 30.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, 17, 21, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0270614 A1 (“Mousain”).
Claim 1
Mousain discloses:
A method of determining validity of a location of a vehicle, the method comprising:
“One embodiment of a method for locating a vehicle is described below with reference to FIG. 2.” Mousain ¶ 51.
obtaining a first location of the vehicle corresponding to a first time;
“In a first step E10, the time tref required for the vehicle 5 to reach a reference position is determined,” Mousain ¶ 56, by using “data[] obtained from at least a second information source (UBMOD), in a step E2.” Mousain ¶ 60. “This second information source may, for example, be a location system of GNSS type.” Mousain ¶ 60.
receiving, at the vehicle from a first Roadside Unit (RSU), a first RSU signal
Meanwhile, “[i]n a step E1 (FORM), the messages transmitted, for example periodically, by a roadside unit 9 are received.” Mousain ¶ 53. “The roadside unit 9 corresponds to a first information source.” Mousain ¶ 53.
including an indication of a location of the first RSU;
This “first information source” includes “location data” or a “location datum.” Mousain ¶¶ 66–67.
obtaining one or more location measurements of the vehicle relative the first RSU based on one or more sensors of the vehicle;
When the vehicle receives the messages from the roadside unit 9 during step E1, “the power of the signal transmitted by the roadside unit 9 is measured by the communicating box 7.” Mousain ¶ 69. This power level, also known as “RSSI,” provides a relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside unit 9. See Mousain ¶¶ 67–68.
determining a first RSU-based location of the vehicle corresponding to the first time based, at least in part, on the one or more location measurements of the vehicle relative the first RSU, and the location of the first RSU;
“In step E20, the variation in the RSSI as a function of time is used to calculate the minimum distance dmin between said vehicle 5 and the roadside unit 9.” Mousain ¶ 70.
comparing the first location of the vehicle with the first RSU-based location of the vehicle;
“The first data obtained from the first information source or RSU 9 by the communicating box 7 are compared with the second data obtained from the at least a second information source.” Mousain ¶ 61. As discussed below and shown in FIG. 2, this may occur using the E40 block, which receives both the result of E20 (dmin) and the result of E10 (tref). See Mousain ¶ 84. Recall that this rejection maps the claimed first location and first RSU-based location to the results of E10 (tref) and E20 (dmin), respectively.
and determining that the first RSU-based location of the vehicle is outside of an acceptable error margin of the first location and, in response thereto, replacing the first location of the vehicle with the first RSU-based location of the vehicle.
“The first estimate obtained in step E40 makes it possible to validate or invalidate at least a second estimate of the position of the vehicle provided by at least a second information source.” Mousain ¶ 87. Recall that the “second information source” is the GNSS position data obtained in E10. See Mousain ¶ 60. Thus, Mousain discloses determining that the second information source is erroneous (invalid) based on a discrepancy between the results of E10 (the GNSS data) and E20 (the RSU 9 data).
Mousain then instructs practitioners to respond to the discrepancy as follows: “In the event of a validation fault, a step of correcting the data provided by the one or more other information sources may be implemented.” Mousain ¶ 90 (emphasis added). In other words, paragraph 90 describes a fallback mechanism that uses the “other” information sources for location instead of the invalidated source, which, as discussed above, is the (now-invalid) GNSS data.
In the context of a validation failure where a GNSS signal is proven incorrect by the RSU, it is impossible to extract an accurate location solely from a faulty signal. Thus, the “correction” of the data necessarily involves overwriting or substituting the invalid GNSS data with the output from these other reliable sources within the system, which Mousain makes clear comes from the RSU location data.
Claim 7
Mousain and Wang teach the method according to of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first location includes
obtaining the first location from a satellite position system of the vehicle, or obtaining the first location based on one or more Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensor measurements, or a combination thereof.
Data is “obtained from at least a second information source (UBMOD), in a step E2.” Mousain ¶ 60. “This second information source may, for example, be a location system of GNSS type.” Mousain ¶ 60.
Claims 11 and 17
Claims 11 and 17 recite a general-purpose computer system configured to implement the same method as set forth in claims 1 and 7, respectively. Therefore, claims 11 and 17 are rejected over the findings set forth in the corresponding rejections of claims 1 and 7 above, taken in conjunction with the finding that Mousain also explicitly discloses a hardware computer system for implementing its disclosed method (see FIGS. 1 and 3, and accompanying disclosure).
Claims 21 and 27
Since claims 21 and 27 are construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification, and since the specification describes the hardware from claims 11 and 17 as a potential corresponding structure, claims 21 and 27 are rejected for the same reasons as corresponding claims 11 and 17.
Claim 30
Claim 30 is directed to a broader version of solely the memory component recited in claim 11, including all of the computer code stored thereon. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 11.
II. Zavoli discloses claims 1, 7, 9–11, 17, 19–21, 27, 29, and 30.
Claims 1, 7, 9–11, 17, 19–21, 27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0270614 A1 (“Zavoli”).
Claim 1
Zavoli teaches:
A method of determining validity of a location of a vehicle, the method comprising:
“FIG. 7 shows a[] flowchart of a method for navigating using absolute and relative coordinates.” Zavoli ¶ 81.
obtaining a first location of the vehicle corresponding to a first time;
“As shown in FIG. 7, in a first step 308, the system makes a position determination using its positioning sensors (generally in terms of absolute coordinates).” Zavoli ¶ 81.
receiving, at the vehicle from a first Roadside Unit (RSU), a first RSU signal including an indication of a location of the first RSU;
“In step 310, the vehicle then uses its object detection sensors to detect [and] characterize” objects that the vehicle “sees.” Zavoli ¶ 81. Additionally, “[i]n step 314, using its matching algorithms, including other characterizing information from the sensor and [a] map database, the system can then uniquely identify the object or objects ‘seen’.” Zavoli ¶ 82. The objects include objects that are mounted on the side of a road, “such as speed signs, stop signs, and street name signs.” Zavoli ¶ 44.
“Such sensors include cameras (both video and still cameras), radar and laser scanners, and other types of sensors.” Zavoli ¶ 26. Hence, in the case of cameras and laser scanners, the claimed first RSU signal corresponds to visible light reflected by the object back to the vehicle, and in the case of radar, the claimed first RSU signal corresponds to radio waves reflected back to the vehicle from the object.
obtaining one or more location measurements of the vehicle relative the first RSU based on one or more sensors of the vehicle;
As an additional aspect of step 310, the vehicle may also “measure the relative position of objects that it ‘sees,’” that is, in addition to also detecting and characterizing the objects. Zavoli ¶ 81.
determining a first RSU-based location of the vehicle corresponding to the first time based, at least in part, on the one or more location measurements of the vehicle relative the first RSU, and the location of the first RSU;
“In step 316, using the object's or objects' relative measurements from the map database and if needed the navigation system's own DR or INS heading estimate, the vehicle can determine its accurate relative coordinates.” Zavoli ¶ 82.
comparing the first location of the vehicle with the first RSU-based location of the vehicle; and determining that the first RSU-based location of the vehicle is outside of an acceptable error margin of the first location and, in response thereto, replacing the first location of the vehicle with the first RSU-based location of the vehicle.
After ascertaining both the absolute position measurements and the relative positions of objects as described above, “a process can be conducted to ‘rubber sheet’ all points according to error minimizing schemes . . . and those points not falling within accuracy specifications can be reviewed and the process reiterated as needed.” Zavoli ¶ 85. In this operation, the comparison is computed as the error between the absolute positions compared with the relative positions, and “those points not falling within accuracy specifications” (Zavoli ¶ 85) correspond to the claimed determination that the RSU-based location of the vehicle is outside the acceptable error margin.
Claim 7
Zavoli discloses the method according to of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first location includes
obtaining the first location from a satellite position system of the vehicle, or obtaining the first location based on one or more Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensor measurements, or a combination of two or more thereof.
As shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle’s positioning sensors include both GPS sensors 146 and INS/DR mapping sensors (not numbered). Consequently, when the vehicle navigation system determines an (initial) absolute position for the vehicle, it may use “GPS, Galileo, or a similar absolute positioning receiver or system[s],” and optionally combine the absolute with “information from INS or DR sensors.” Zavoli ¶ 74.
Claim 9
Zavoli discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more sensors includes a LIDAR device, a camera device, a radar device, or any combination of two or more thereof.
The object detection sensors include “cameras (both video and still cameras), radar and laser scanners, and other types of sensors.” Zavoli ¶ 26.
Claim 10
Zavoli discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein obtaining the one or more location measurements of the vehicle relative the first RSU includes using radio localization based on existence of a non-line-of-sight condition between the vehicle and the first RSU.
“[O]bject identification can be further insured by installing radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, or similar tags, on objects, as has been widely proposed. Each vehicle can then sense the RFID tag on the object, and can use this identifier as a further means to minimize the error involved in identifying a common object.” Zavoli ¶ 56. Notably, this means that in cases where the vehicle loses sight of a roadside object, the vehicle is solely using the RFID identifier as its only means for matching the object to the map.
Claims 11, 17, 19, and 20
Claims 11, 17, 19, and 20 recite a general-purpose computer system configured to implement the same method as set forth in claims 1, 7, 9, and 10, respectively. Therefore, claims 11, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected over the findings set forth in the corresponding rejections of claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 above, taken in conjunction with the finding that Zavoli also explicitly discloses a hardware computer system for implementing its disclosed method. See Zavoli ¶ 99.
Claims 21, 27, and 29
Since claims 21, 27, and 29 are construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification, and since the specification describes the hardware from claims 11, 17, and 19 as a potential corresponding structure, claims 21, 27, and 29 are rejected for the same reasons as corresponding claims 11, 17, and 19.
Claim 30
Claim 30 is directed to a broader version of solely the memory component recited in claim 11, including all of the computer code stored thereon. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 11.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
I. Mousain and Wang teach claims 4, 6, 14, 16, 24, and 26.
Claims 4, 6, 14, 16, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mousain in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0239352 A1 (“Wang”).
Claim 4
Mousain teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose alerting a driver of the vehicle, or giving control of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle, or any combination of two or more thereof, based on the first RSU-based location of the vehicle being outside of an acceptable error margin of the first location.
Wang, however, teaches:
alerting a driver of the vehicle, or giving control of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle, or any combination of two or more thereof, based on the first RSU-based location of the vehicle being outside of the acceptable error margin of the first location.
“In some examples, the safe pull over mode 310,” which, as explained in the rejection of claim 1, is responsive to a faulty localization sensor, “can be incorporated into step 130 and/or step 150 of process 100 (e.g., as described above with reference to FIG. 1 above). The vehicle can transition out of mode 310 in response to determining that the vehicle safely pulled over (e.g., can transition back into mode 302).” Wang ¶ 30. In addition to eventually giving control back to the driver (after previously taking it away based on the sensor being outside of an acceptable margin of safety), step 130 (into which safe pull over mode 310 is incorporated) may further include an instruction to “alert the driver before requiring the driver to take over driving operations.” Wang ¶ 38.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Wang’s “safe pull over mode 310” as a contingency to Mousain’s vehicle, e.g., for when the sensors onboard Mousain’s vehicle fail or are deemed erroneous. One would have been motivated to improve Mousain with Wang’s method because “existing driving solutions are unable to address every possible circumstances encountered by vehicles operating autonomously.” Wang ¶ 3.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites a method that comprises at least each and every step of claim 1 but repeated a second time, at a second location, with a second RSU.
Mousain likewise teaches that “[a] plurality of RSUs 9 may be arranged on the side of the roadway 3,” and that “[m]essages 20 comprising data may be exchanged between the communicating box 7 of each vehicle 5 and each RSU 9.” Mousain ¶¶ 44 and 48. Mousain further discloses a “communicating box 7” that “comprises the hardware and/or software elements that make it possible to implement the steps of a method for locating a vehicle such as that described above with reference to FIG. 2.” Mousain ¶ 97. In other words, Mousain discloses a device that, in its normal and usual operation, necessarily performs the method of FIG. 2 for any given RSU 9, and further discloses that there is at least a second RSU 9, see Mousain ¶¶ 44 and 48, with which communicating box 7 performs the same method of FIG. 2, which includes:
obtaining a second location of the vehicle corresponding to a second time;
Data is “obtained from at least a second information source (UBMOD), in a step E2.” Mousain ¶ 60. “This second information source may, for example, be a location system of GNSS type.” Mousain ¶ 60.
receiving, at the vehicle from a second RSU, a second RSU signal
“In a step E1 (FORM), the messages transmitted, for example periodically, by a roadside unit 9 are received. The messages 20 transmitted by a roadside unit 9 are received by the communicating box 7 of the vehicle 5. The roadside unit 9 corresponds to a first information source.” Mousain ¶ 53.
including an indication of a location of the second RSU;
“At least one type of data obtained from the first information source corresponding to a roadside unit 9 . . . is referred to by the term ‘location data’.” Mousain ¶ 66.
obtaining one or more location measurements between the vehicle and the second RSU based on one or more sensors of the vehicle;
“In step E1, the power of the signal transmitted by the roadside unit 9 is measured by the communicating box 7.” Mousain ¶ 69.
determining a second RSU-based location of the vehicle corresponding to the second time based, at least in part, on the one or more location measurements of the vehicle relative the second RSU, and the location of the second RSU;
In step E102, “[o]n the basis of the reception, by the communicating box 7, of messages transmitted by said roadside unit 9, it is possible to obtain first data providing a first current position of the vehicle and/or a first speed in real time of the vehicle and/or a first direction of movement of the vehicle.” Mousain ¶ 59.
comparing the second location of the vehicle with the second RSU-based location of the vehicle to validate the second location;
“The first data obtained from the first information source or RSU 9 by the communicating box 7 are compared with the second data obtained from the at least a second information source.” Mousain ¶ 61.
Mousain does not explicitly disclose the crash-risk-reducing maneuver recited in claim 6 as a possible contingency for erroneous location detection.
Wang, however, teaches a method comprising:
requesting performance of a crash-risk-reducing maneuver by the automated driving system of the vehicle based on the second RSU-based location of the vehicle being outside an acceptable error of margin of the second location.
“Safe pull over mode 310 can correspond to a driving mode into which the vehicle can automatically transition if the vehicle determines that it must pull over after detecting . . . a faulty sensor, or any other malfunction.” Wang ¶ 30.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Wang’s “safe pull over mode 310” as a contingency to Mousain’s vehicle, e.g., for when the sensors onboard Mousain’s vehicle fail or are deemed erroneous. One would have been motivated to improve Mousain with Wang’s method because “existing driving solutions are unable to address every possible circumstances encountered by vehicles operating autonomously.” Wang ¶ 3.
Claims 14 and 24
The additional steps taken by the respective systems of claims 14 and 24 are the same as those taken in the method of claim 4. Therefore, claims 14 and 24 are rejected over the same additional findings set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above, taken in conjunction with the findings given in the prior art rejections of their respective parent claims.
Claims 16 and 26
The additional steps taken by the respective systems of claims 16 and 26 are the same as those taken in the method of claim 6. Therefore, claims 16 and 26 are rejected over the same additional findings set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above, taken in conjunction with the findings given in the prior art rejections of their respective parent claims.
II. Mousain and Foster teach claims 8, 18, and 28.
Claims 8, 18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mousain as applied to claims 1, 11, and 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0140569 A1 (“Foster”).
Claim 8
Mousain teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the first RSU signal further includes an RSU identification number,
“The signals processed or to be processed in the method described below, in particular the messages 20 exchanged between the RSUs 9 and the communicating boxes 7 of the vehicles 5, conform, for example, to the 802.11p Wi-Fi standard.” Mousain ¶ 50. As such, in accordance with the 802.11p standard, all entities that communicate via 802.11p have their own unique BSSID, which “is a 48-bit long field just like a MAC address” that is communicated over the air as part of the 802.11 data frame. Daniel Jiang and Luca Delgrossi, IEEE 802.11p: Towards an International Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments, VTC Spring 2008 - IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (2008) (page 2038), available at https://doi.org/10.1109/VETECS.2008.
the method further including: determining whether the RSU identification number is registered in a map;
“In a third step E30, a filtering is performed, in particular with respect to a map (MAP). Knowing the position of the RSU 9 on the map and the topology of the road, it is possible to determine on which portion of the road the vehicle is located and thus filter part of the circle of uncertainty obtained in the second step E20.” Mousain ¶ 80. To be clear, Mousain does not explicitly use the words “identification number” to describe the stored instance of RSU 9 on the map, but Mousain’s reference to “the” RSU 9 strongly suggests that the map comprises some unique identifier to distinguish which RSU in the map corresponds to “the RSU 9.”
Mousain does not appear to explicitly disclose “reporting the RSU identification number to a server based on the RSU identification number being absent from the map.”
Foster, however, teaches a technique in which an in-vehicle control computer is 150 is configured to “determine that there is a discrepancy between the detected road data and the retrieved mapped data,” and if so “the in-vehicle control computer 150 is configured to update the mapped data with the detected road data, and send the updated mapped data to the remote oversight system through the network communication subsystem.” Foster ¶ 905.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Mousain’s method of map-matching roadside units with Foster’s technique of updating a copy of the map on a server with newly discovered objects in the map. One would have been motivated to improve Mousain with Foster’s technique because “it is desirable for the autonomous vehicle 105 to obtain accurate information regarding the current and/or future environmental conditions which the autonomous vehicle 105 may encounter while traversing a route.” Foster ¶ 632.
Claims 18 and 28
The additional steps taken by the respective systems of claims 18 and 28 are the same as those taken in the method of claim 8. Therefore, claims 18 and 28 are rejected over the same additional findings set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above, taken in conjunction with the findings given in the prior art rejections of their respective parent claims.
III. Zavoli and Li teach claim 31.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zavoli as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0018681 A1 (“Li”).
Claim 31
Zavoli teaches the system according to 11, configured to:
determine that
After ascertaining both the absolute position measurements and the relative positions of objects as described in the rejection of claim 1, “a process can be conducted to ‘rubber sheet’ all points according to error minimizing schemes . . . and those points not falling within accuracy specifications can be reviewed and the process reiterated as needed.” Zavoli ¶ 85. In this operation, the comparison is computed as the error between the absolute positions compared with the relative positions, and “those points not falling within accuracy specifications” (Zavoli ¶ 85) correspond to the claimed determination that the RSU-based location of the vehicle is outside the acceptable error margin.
wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine each of the sensor-based locations using at least one of a satellite positioning system receiver and an inertial measurement unit.
As shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle’s positioning sensors include both GPS sensors 146 and INS/DR mapping sensors (not numbered). Consequently, when the vehicle navigation system determines an (initial) absolute position for the vehicle, it may use “GPS, Galileo, or a similar absolute positioning receiver or system[s],” and optionally combine the absolute with “information from INS or DR sensors.” Zavoli ¶ 74.
Zavoli does not appear to explicitly disclose a system that requests performance of a crash-risk-reducing maneuver, let alone requesting the same in response to determining that consecutively-determined RSU-based locations of the vehicle are outside of the acceptable error margin.
Wang, however, teaches a system configured to:
determine that
“Safe pull over mode 310 can correspond to a driving mode into which the vehicle can automatically transition if the vehicle determines that it must pull over after detecting . . . a faulty sensor, or any other malfunction.” Wang ¶ 30.
wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine each of the sensor-based locations using at least one of a satellite positioning system receiver and an inertial measurement unit.
“[T]he examples described above can transition between automated levels without input from the driver. For example, the vehicle can be operating at semi-automated level 220 when the vehicle uses its sensors (e.g., GPS, radar, LIDAR, and/or camera systems).” Wang ¶ 23.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Wang’s “safe pull over mode 310” as a contingency to Mousain’s vehicle, e.g., for when the sensors onboard Mousain’s vehicle fail or are deemed erroneous. One would have been motivated to improve Mousain with Wang’s method because “existing driving solutions are unable to address every possible circumstances encountered by vehicles operating autonomously.” Wang ¶ 3.
Thus, the only difference between the Zavoli-Wang combination and the invention of claim 31 is the condition precedent of determining that consecutively determined are outside of the acceptable error margin before declaring a sensor faulty (and thus, pulling over safely as taught by Wang).
Li, however, teaches exactly this technique, i.e., where a particular type of sensor is only declared “faulty” when the count of the number of detected failures from a particular sensor reaches a threshold count: “The PNT system counts a number of times that the potential fault condition is detected. The PNT system also compares the number of times that the potential fault condition is detected with a predetermined value. In response to determining the number of times that the potential fault condition is detected exceeds the predetermined value, the PNT system determines a confirmed fault condition with the particular sensor.” Li ¶ 4.
Notably, the sensors 30 for which Li teaches this technique include “signal of opportunity receivers.” Li ¶ 19. The term “signal of opportunity” is a known term of art that describes the use of radio signals of a known source (e.g., AM/FM stations, cellular towers, business and residential Wi-Fi) to derive a location.1 Since the Li teaches that its signal-of-opportunity receivers are one of the sensors whose position errors may be counted and deemed faulty after a sufficient number of failures, Li directly teaches the claimed “consecutively determined RSU-based locations” limitation.
It is also noted that Li, like the other references and the claimed invention, further derives its position estimation from GPS receives and inertial motion units. See Li ¶¶ 19–20.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Zavoli and Wang’s combined system with Li’s error detection strategy of counting the number of faults in the sensors before declaring an erroneous sensor. One would have been motivated to utilize Li’s error detection strategy because, according to Li, some sensor failures may be transient or temporary, necessitating a counting strategy to provide confirmation of the issue. See Li ¶ 24.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0196849 A1 (“Chen”) teaches a method 1900 (FIG. 19), which, much like the claimed invention, uses non-GNSS sensor data to discover a discrepancy between the location of a vehicle relative to a landmark on one hand, and GNSS data on the other, and relies on the non-GNSS sensor data upon discovering the discrepancy. See Chen ¶ 180 et seq.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 See, e.g., Homayoun Nikookar and Patrick Oonincx, An Introduction to Radio Locating with Signals of Opportunity (Jan 29, 2016), available at <https://www.riverpublishers.com/journal/journal_articles/RP_Journal_2246-2120_20161001.pdf> and Cpt. Wilfred E. Noel, Signals of Opportunity Navigation Using Wi-Fi Signals (March 2011), available at <https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA540162.pdf>.
Prosecution Insights