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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application, and claim 6 has been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to claim 5 has overcome the previous objection set forth in the previous non-final office action.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al. (US 20170227970 A1) in view of Imagawa (US 20160259034 A1) and Matsushita (US 20190011269 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Taguchi teaches an autonomous vehicle ([0019], “vehicle such as a car”), comprising: a road surface image obtaining device configured to obtain a road surface image, the road surface image being an image of a road surface below the vehicle body ([0026], camera; Fig. 1, imaging unit 12; [0043], “recognizes the road environment … includes the positions of the white lines”); a memory unit that stores map data in which positional coordinates and an orientation of the vehicle body are associated with each other ([0033-0035], “database that stores map information”…”stores captured images each associated with map information (latitude, longitude)”); an estimating unit that is configured to estimate a self-location by comparing feature points extracted from traveling data and feature points extracted from the map data, the traveling data being the road surface image obtained by the road surface image obtaining device, and the map data being a map image ([0049-0050] and [0063], vehicle position detection unit 25 matches between a current-captured image and an image stored in logic database 6 to performed position detection processing; [0046], white-line edge points, i.e. feature points, are extracted from travel data and compared with map data); and a determining unit that is configured to execute a reliability determining process of determining a reliability of the self-location estimated by the estimating unit wherein the reliability determining process includes: a process of determining whether the estimating unit is in a state capable of estimating the self-location ([0072] and [0080], “determination unit determines that an intervention operation has been performed by the driver…because there is a possibility that the position detection processing… is not appropriate”); and a process of determining, in a case in which the self-location can be estimated, whether a number of matches between the feature points extracted from the map data and the feature points extracted from the traveling data when the estimating unit estimates the self-location reaches a predetermined threshold ([0088], “calculates the detection reliability based on the correlation value of matching between the current camera-captured image and the camera-captured image stored in the logic database 6”; [0035], images in logic database are associated with map information), and the determining unit is configured to determine the reliability of the self-location estimated by the estimating unit based on results of processes included in the reliability determining process ([0088], “upon a determination that the second vehicle position is not accurately detected in the traveling scene corresponding to the low detection-reliability state”).
Taguchi does not teach that the road surface image obtaining device is located on a bottom surface of a vehicle body. However, related reference Imagawa does teach an imager that is located on the bottom of a vehicle ([0029-0030]; Fig 1, imager 12). As Taguchi is analogous to the art of position estimation for road vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the camera of Taguchi be located on the bottom of the vehicle so that it can capture road images directly beneath the vehicle.
Taguchi does not teach wherein the determining unit rearranges the map images in order of closeness to the latest self-location and, based on the order of closeness, determines a priority order of the map images to be compared in the matching process for estimating the self-location; and a process of determining whether the map image, in which matching is established when the estimating unit estimates the self-location, is a map image having a priority lower than a predetermined priority threshold among map images to be subjected to matching.
It is noted that support for these limitations is found in paragraphs [0032] and [0033] of applicant’s specification. However, these paragraphs do not clearly define the terms “rearrange” or “closeness”. As such, the terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In the same field of map matching for vehicle localization, Matsushita teaches: wherein the determining unit, based on an order of closeness (adjacency) to the latest self-location, determines a priority order of the map images, where the map images are rearranged (organized) in the order of closeness, to be compared in the matching process for estimating the self-location ([0098-0099] and [0129], where the map information “includes maps to be used in map matching that are each stored as a two-dimensional divided map image called a tile map,” and said tiles are organized by coordinate information as shown in Fig. 9; [0068] and [0130-0131], where a priority score is assigned to each tile and adjacent tiles are assigned a higher priority). While Matsushita does not teach the positive manipulative step of rearranging the map images, such a step is inherent to the disclosure of Matsushita as the map information is already rearranged ([0099], where the map tiles are “organized by coordinate information” as shown in Fig. 9).
Matsushita further teaches a process of determining whether the map image, in which matching is established when the estimating unit estimates the self-location, is a map image having a priority higher than a predetermined priority threshold among map images to be subjected to matching ([0112-0115], where the priority of a map image is determined, and if higher than a predetermined priority, it is “sequentially acquired” for matching by the map information acquisition unit). Although Matsushita teaches determining if a map image priority is higher than a predetermined priority, it is capable of determining whether the map image priority is lower than a predetermined priority, and it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the determination according to the need of the artisan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Taguchi with the priority scoring system of Matsushita based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation, as taught by Matsushita, of acquiring and matching priority map data and images based on the location and conditions of a vehicle to simplify the function and reduce the burden of position estimation via map matching ([0005] and [0135]).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Taguchi teaches a process of determining whether a distribution of the feature points extracted from the map data is uneven; and a process of determining whether a distribution of the feature points extracted from the traveling data is uneven ([0065] and [0086], “peak in correlation values” indicates even distribution, “noisy correlation distribution” indicates uneven distribution).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Taguchi further teaches a process of determining whether a relative distance between the map image and the road surface image when the estimating unit performs matching is less than a predetermined threshold ([0045-0046], “the detection result of the external sensor 1 need not necessarily be used” for the first vehicle position, thus is the estimated position from the map image; [0049-0050] and [0063], second vehicle position may come from “current camera-captured image”, thus is the estimated position from the road surface image; [0071]).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 3. Taguchi teaches the process of determining a case in which the relative distance between the map image and the road surface image is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold ([0045-0046], “the detection result of the external sensor 1 need not necessarily be used” for the first vehicle position, thus is the estimated position from the map image; [0049-0050] and [0063], second vehicle position may come from “current camera-captured image”, thus is the estimated position from the road surface image; [0080], “not equal to or smaller than the threshold”).
Taguchi does not teach determining whether a relative distance between the self-location estimated by the estimating unit and a self-location based on vehicle odometry information is less than a predetermined threshold.
Matsushita teaches determining whether a relative distance between the self-location estimated by the estimating unit and a self-location based on vehicle odometry information is less than a predetermined threshold ([0066] and [0150], where the position detector uses acceleration and geomagnetic readings to determine a moving direction, moving amount, and position, and it is determined if this position is separated by less than or more than a threshold distance from a position estimated by the map matching unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective date of filing to include a determination of a comparison between a position reading of a position detector and a position estimated by an estimating unit based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Matsushita, of determining that map matching needs to be reinitialized if its accuracy is below a threshold, thereby ensuring that estimated positions are accurate and safe ([0150]).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Taguchi does not teach a process of determining whether an elapsed time is shorter than a predetermined threshold, the elapsed time being a difference between a previous point in time at which the estimating unit performed matching and a current point in time at which the estimating unit performed the matching.
Matsushita teaches a process of determining whether an elapsed time is longer than a predetermined threshold, the elapsed time being a difference between a previous point in time at which the estimating unit performed matching and a current point in time at which the estimating unit performed the matching ([0160], where the map matching unit determines an if an elapsed time, which is from a time when the map matching previously occurred to a current time, has exceeded a predetermined time interval threshold). Matsushita teaches that map matching occurs at predetermined time intervals when an elapsed time since the last map matching exceeds a predetermined interval of time. It is recognized that when the map matching occurs at a current time as a result, the elapsed time is a difference between a previous point in time at which the estimating unit performed matching and the current point in time at which the estimating unit performed the matching. Although this determination is for whether an elapsed time is longer than the predetermined threshold, the invention of Matsushita is capable of determining whether the elapsed time is shorter than the threshold, and it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the determination according to the need of the artisan, such as for the motivation of ensuring that the map matching is not occurring too frequently if the elapsed time is not over the threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective date of filing to include a determination of the elapsed time since map matching was last performed based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Matsushita, of determining whether the current position remains accurate or whether enough time has passed so that the map matching needs to be performed to correct it ([0160]). This determination and subsequent correction ensures that the current position remains accurately determined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of amended claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Matsushita as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The following art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Koyama et al. (US 20200034989 A1)
Ollila (US 11119313 B1)
Luo et al. (US 20190066329 A1)
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 JACK ROBERT BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK ROBERT. BREWER/
Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663