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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 states “wherein the determining unit is configured to execute the reliability determining process through a plurality of sequential decision steps in a serial manner”. The underlined part of the limitation creates confusion. As is best understood, “sequential decision steps” by their very nature create diverting paths and different possible paths of execution. However, serial as used in the claim is defined as “occurring in or involving such a series”, which means that the steps occurring “in a serial manner” would mean that the execution follows a linear algorithm path. Therefore, it is indefinite how the determining process can comprise decision steps if it is to occur in a serial manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imagawa (US 20160259034 A1) in view of Matsushita (US 20190011269 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Imagawa teaches an autonomous vehicle (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a road surface image obtaining device that is located on a bottom surface of a vehicle body and is configured to obtain a road surface image, the road surface image being an image of a road surface below the vehicle body ([0032] and see Fig. 1, imager captures the road surface);
a memory unit that stores map data in which positional coordinates and an orientation of the vehicle body are associated with each other ([0032]);
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 ([0031-0032], extracts traveling road surface image and matches it to stored road surface features);
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 ([0059] and [0064], it is determined if the feature points extracted and the matching degree are reliable enough),
wherein the determining unit is configured to execute the reliability determining process through a plurality of sequential decision steps in a serial manner ([0064] and see Figs. 2-3, the different reliability determining steps occur sequentially),
during the reliability determining process, the determining unit is configured to (i) proceed to a subsequent decision step to evaluate a higher level of reliability when a current condition of a current decision step is satisfied ([0057-0059] and [0064], lowest level of reliability results in a discarding of the feature of a first image and a new image is captures, whereas a valid matching region results in the next evaluation, wherein the next level results in a low or high reliability being output with the position);
and (ii) output a specific reliability level associated with the current decision step and terminate the reliability determining process when the current condition is not satisfied ([0057-0059] and [0064], an invalid matching region or low matching reliability result in the process being terminated for that image, and the process beginning again with a new photo, and the reliability is outputted with the estimated position (if able to be generated)),
and the plurality of decision steps includes:
a state decision step of increasing the reliability level, based on the estimating unit being in a state capable of estimating the self-location ([0056-0057] and [0059], inclinations of the moving vehicle result in the image of the road surface being deformed such that the controller is in a state unable to determine the matching region), and
a matching decision step of increasing the reliability level based on 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 reaching a predetermined threshold ([0063-0064], matching degree is accessed, and if it is not above a predetermined reference, its reliability is considered low).
Imagawa does not teach a closeness decision step of increasing the reliability level based on a sorting number assigned to a map image in which matching is established being less than a predetermined sorting threshold, wherein sorting numbers are assigned to the map images in ascending order based on closeness to a latest self-location.
In the same field of map matching for vehicle localization, Matsushita teaches:
a closeness decision step of increasing the reliability level based on a sorting number assigned to a map image in which matching is established being greater than a predetermined sorting threshold, wherein sorting numbers are assigned to the map images in descending order based on closeness to a latest self-location ([0098-0099], [0129], and see Fig. 9, map images are assigned scores that function as sorting numbers according to a priority order process; [0068], [0112-0115], and [0130-0131], map images adjacent to a latest self-location are assigned the scores/sorting numbers where the priority of a map image is determined, and if an image is higher than a predetermined threshold, it is “sequentially acquired” for matching by the map information acquisition unit).
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]).
Matsushita operates by determining a high sorting score for adjacent map images, which descends for map images further away, wherein scores above a predetermined scoring threshold are considered reliable enough and selected. While Matsushita does not teach explicitly teach assigning the scores in ascending order and ensuring that map image sorting scores are less than a predetermined threshold, because Matsushita teaches that “the position estimation system 100 may be configured such that the lower the score is, the higher the priority is” ([0135]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that assigning proximate map images a high sorting score and selecting scores over a threshold is functionally equivalent to assigning proximate map images a low sorting score and selecting scores below a threshold.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imagawa in view of Matsushita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taguchi et al. (US 20170227970 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the prior combination does not teach the claim.
In the same field of endeavor,
Taguchi teaches:
a first distribution decision step of increasing the reliability level in a case in which a distribution of the feature points extracted from the map data is uneven; and a second distribution decision step of increasing the reliability level in a case in which a distribution of the feature points extracted from the traveling data is uneven ([0065] and [0086-0088], “peak in correlation values” indicates even distribution, “noisy correlation distribution” indicates uneven distribution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination with he teachings of Taguchi based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Taguchi, of ensuring accurate performance of map matching, and thus accurate position tracking, as necessary for autonomous vehicles, “thereby avoiding autonomous driving control based on a wrong vehicle position” ([0065] and [0111-0112]).
Regarding claim 3, the prior combination does not teach the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Taguchi teaches:
a distance determination process of increasing the reliability level in a case in which 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]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination with the teachings of Taguchi based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Taguchi, of ensuring accurate performance of map matching, and thus accurate position tracking, as necessary for autonomous vehicles, “thereby avoiding autonomous driving control based on a wrong vehicle position” ([0065] and [0111-0112]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to correct the indefiniteness upon which claim 1 was rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Taguchi nor Matsushita teach “a reliability determining process executed through sequential decision steps where the determining unit outputs a specific reliability level and terminates when a condition is not satisfied.” However, this is moot as previous secondary reference Imagawa is now relied upon to teach said limitations. As cited in the rejection above, Imagawa discloses a plurality of sequential decision steps that terminate if unreliability is determined, and that output reliability associated with said determinations.
Applicant further argues that Matsushita “does not teach assigning sorting numbers to map images in ascending order based on closeness to a latest self-location for the purpose of determining, as part of a closeness decision step, whether a sorting number assigned to a map image in which matching is established is less than a predetermined sorting threshold.” This is unpersuasive. As cited above, Imagawa already teaches that map images are assessed and increased in reliability based off of those assessments. Furthermore, Matsushita teaches assigning sorting scores to map images in a descending order based on closeness, and selecting the images with greater than a certain threshold as images of enough reliability to be sent for map matching. Additionally, as Matsushita teaches that “the position estimation system 100 may be configured such that the lower the score is, the higher the priority is” ([0135]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a sorting in ascending order and selection of sorting scores less than a predetermined threshold is functionally equivalent to the disclosed embodiment of Matsushita. Thus, the combination of references maps the claim.
Applicant further argues that “the context and purpose are entirely different” between Matsushita and the claim language. This is unpersuasive. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is advised to add language to the claims that would meaningfully distinguish between the teachings of Matsushita in order to overcome the combination used to reject the presently amended 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)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-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 R BREWER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights