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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 4, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed in the RCE on February 4, 2026.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are currently amended.
Claims 1-7 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments submitted on February 4, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the amended claims render moot the present 35 USC 101 rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly added claim limitation to each of the independent claims, “wherein the comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map, each layer comprising environmental features with sensor-specific signatures corresponding to the type of environmental sensor” is considered to be part of the abstract idea, as explained below. Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments submitted on September 12, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, based on Applicant’s amendments, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new ground of rejection is made in view of Kulkarni, et al. (Publication US 2023/0324543 A1.)
With respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of the dependent claims, the rejections have been modified based on the newly found art based on Applicant’s amendments.
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 1, 6, and 7 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 each rejected because they each claim, “a comparison of the respectively determined positions with their uncertainties is performed and the initial position is determined depending on the comparison”, in one limitation; “a comparison of the sensed environmental data values to the map” in a subsequent limitation; and “wherein the comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map…” in the newly added limitation at the end of each independent claim. The newly added claim limitation is indefinite because it does not clearly identify which of the prior “comparison” limitations that it is referring to.
For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the limitations as follows: “a first comparison of the respectively determined positions with their uncertainties is performed and the initial position is determined depending on the comparison” in the first limitation; “a second comparison of the sensed environmental data values to the map” in the subsequent limitation; and “wherein the second comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map…” in the newly added claim limitation at the end of each independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
Independent claims 1, 6, and 7 (Claim 6 is being analyzed because it is representative of independent claims 1 and 7.) Claim 6 recites: “perform several localization methods to determine an initial position, each localization method being configured to determine a respective position of the vehicle with a particular uncertainty, depending on the respective localization method, and a comparison of the respectively determined positions with their uncertainties is performed and the initial position is determined depending on the comparison” and “determine the highly accurate position of the vehicle based on a comparison of the sensed environmental data values to the map”, and “wherein the comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map, each layer comprising environmental features with sensor-specific signatures corresponding to the type of environmental sensor”, and as drafted, these are limitations that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claim is practically able to be performed in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a control unit, configured to determine a highly accurate position of a vehicle, the control unit configured to:” nothing in the claim element precludes the limitation from practically being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “control unit, configured to determine a highly accurate position of a vehicle, the control unit configured to:”; “subsequently provide a map, starting from the initial position, the provided map at least partially representing an environment of the vehicle”; and “sense environmental data values using an environmental sensor system of the vehicle.”
The “control unit, configured to determine a highly accurate position of a vehicle, the control unit configured to:” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The “subsequently provide a map, starting from the initial position, the provided map at least partially representing an environment of the vehicle” and “sense environmental data values using an environmental sensor system of the vehicle” are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, of the “control unit, configured to determine a highly accurate position of a vehicle, the control unit configured to:”; “subsequently provide a map, starting from the initial position, the provided map at least partially representing an environment of the vehicle”; and “sense environmental data values using an environmental sensor system of the vehicle” are addressed.
The “control unit, configured to determine a highly accurate position of a vehicle, the control unit configured to:” merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract ideas in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The “control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the abstract idea limitations.
The “subsequently provide a map, starting from the initial position, the provided map at least partially representing an environment of the vehicle” and “sense environmental data values using an environmental sensor system of the vehicle” are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, well understood, routine, and conventional, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5: Abstract Ideas
Claim 2 recites “… wherein the initial position is determined by: i) selecting, depending on the comparison, the respective determined position that is sufficiently accurate according to specified criteria, or ii) fusing, depending on the comparison, at least one subset of the respectively determined positions and their uncertainties to form the initial position.”
Claim 3 recites “… wherein the specified criteria are determined in real time, depending on the environment, or depending on at least one of the respectively determined positions.”
Claim 4 recites “… wherein the highly accurate position is used to orient the map in vehicle coordinates.”
Claim 5 recites “… wherein the several localization methods are performed one after the other, wherein, after each localization method is performed, the respectively determined position with its uncertainty is made plausible using an already previously determined position and the associated uncertainty, wherein the initial position is determined to be the respectively determined position that is first sufficiently accurate according to the specified criteria.”
All of these limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman, et al., Publication US 2020/0025575 A1, in view of Wang, et al., Publication US 2018/0216942 A1, and Kulkarni, et al. (Publication US 2023/0324543 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Weissman”, “Wang”, and “Kulkarni”.)
As per claim 1, Weissman discloses a method for determining a highly accurate position of a vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
performing several localization methods to determine an initial position, each localization method being configured to determine a respective position of the vehicle with a particular uncertainty, depending on the respective localization method, and a comparison of the respectively determined positions with their uncertainties is performed and the initial position is determined depending on the comparison [see at least Weissman FIG. 16 "1605 Determine a first localization solution associated with a location of the vehicle in a navigable environment using a radar transceiver of the navigation system"; "1610 Determine a second localization solution associated with the location of the vehicle in the navigable environment using a LiDAR transceiver of the navigation system"; "1615 Select a localization solution from the first and second localization solutions based on whether an accuracy of the first localization exceeds an accuracy of the second localization solution"; [0132] "Some localization solutions may determine a point that represents the estimated location of the vehicle within the navigable environment..."],
subsequently providing a map, starting from the initial position, the provided map at least partially representing an environment of the vehicle [see at least Weissman [0133] "One or more actions can be performed based on the localization solution (stage 1620). The navigation unit 270 can be configured to perform various actions based on the localization solution and an operating mode in which the vehicle is utilized. Where the vehicle is operating in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, the navigation system 270 can use the localization solution to navigate the vehicle through the navigable environment. ... the navigation unit 270 may navigate the vehicle using the localization solution and provide an alert to the driver that the vehicle is approaching a navigation destination."];
sensing environmental data values using an environmental sensor system of the vehicle [see at least Weissman [0134] "…camera-based solutions may be used in addition to…the LiDAR based position solution."]
Weissman fails to disclose … determining the highly accurate position of the vehicle based on a comparison of the sensed environmental data values to the map. However, Wang teaches this limitation see at least Wang [0043] "The goal of the localization module 301 is to determine with high accuracy a location of the ADV."; [0071] "...For each candidate cell traversed in the ADV coarse search space 410, a feature space of approximately 1024×1024 cells surrounding the candidate cell is compared to the HD map feature space 430 and a similarity score is determined for the candidate cell. ..."; [0045] "Localization module 301 can include a location module 301A,… a collect module 301D, an analysis module 301E… Collect module 301D periodically collects 3D point cloud and pose data from sensors of perception module 302. 3D point cloud represents sensor data surrounding the ADV. A location module 301A may obtain the 3D point cloud and pose data from collect module 301D."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Weissman to use … determining the highly accurate position of the vehicle based on a comparison of the sensed environmental data values to the map as disclosed in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more adaptable map generation regarding dynamic elements. [See at least Wang [0005].]
The combination of Weissman and Wang fails to disclose, “…wherein the comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map, each layer comprising environmental features with sensor-specific signatures corresponding to the type of environmental sensor”. However, Kulkarni teaches this limitation [see at least Kulkarni [0052] “…a matching algorithm can be used to compare the local radar signature (produced at block 460) with the reference radar map layer (obtained/downloaded at block 410), enabling the determination an X-Y location estimate for the vehicle 405 in space with respect to a global reference frame and the vehicle's heading direction.”; [0040] “Referring again to FIG. 1, as the vehicle 110 travels within a geographical region corresponding to an area of the HD map, the vehicle 110 use different sensors (e.g. sensors 205) to gather information for different corresponding map layers of the HD map. For example, one or more cameras (e.g., camera(s) 210) can be used to gather information for a camera map layer, radar (e.g., radar 235) can be used to gather information for a radar map layer, lidar may be used to gather information for a lidar map layer, and so forth.”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Weissman and Wang to use “…wherein the comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map, each layer comprising environmental features with sensor-specific signatures corresponding to the type of environmental sensor” as disclosed in Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved vehicle operation and safety of vehicle passengers. [See at least Kulkarni [0086].]
As per claim 2, the combination of Weissman, Wang, and Kulkarni, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Weissman discloses … wherein the initial position is determined by:
i) selecting, depending on the comparison, the respective determined position that is sufficiently accurate according to specified criteria [see at least Weissman FIG. 16 "1615 Select a localization solution from the first and second localization solutions based on whether an accuracy of the first localization exceeds an accuracy of the second localization solution."], or
ii) fusing, depending on the comparison, at least one subset of the respectively determined positions and their uncertainties to form the initial position.
As per claim 3, the combination of Weissman, Wang, and Kulkarni, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Weissman discloses … wherein the specified criteria are determined in real time, depending on the environment, or depending on at least one of the respectively determined positions [see at least Weissman [0129] "A localization solution can be selected from the first and second localization solutions based on whether an accuracy of the first localization solution exceeds an accuracy of the second localization solution (stage 1615). … If both of the localization solutions do not meet the reliability thresholds, then an operator of the vehicle can be alerted to assume control over the navigation of the vehicle. The operator may be located in the vehicle and can assume manual control of the vehicle. The operator may be located remotely from the vehicle and can assume control over the vehicle via a wireless connection." {Examiner note: This scenario, where a driver assumes control if both localizations aren't reliable, must be taking place in real time.}]
As per claim 4, the combination of Weissman, Wang, and Kulkarni, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Weissman fails to disclose … wherein the highly accurate position is used to orient the map in vehicle coordinates. However, Wang teaches this limitation [see at least Wang [0044] "Another objective of the localization module 301 is to determine a confidence score of the collected localization data for the candidate cell or candidate pose (location and orientation) of the ADV. Collected localization data having a high confidence score will be subsequently applied, i.e. saved with versioning, to an existing localization map of the ADV according to the candidate cell location such that the existing localization map is self-evolving with the latest perceived data."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Weissman to use … wherein the highly accurate position is used to orient the map in vehicle coordinates as disclosed in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more adaptable map generation regarding dynamic elements. [See at least Wang [0005].]
As per claim 5, the combination of Weissman, Wang, and Kulkarni, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Weissman discloses … wherein the several localization methods are performed one after the other, wherein, after each localization method is performed, the respectively determined position with its uncertainty is made plausible using an already previously determined position and the associated uncertainty, wherein the initial position is determined to be the respectively determined position that is first sufficiently accurate according to the specified criteria [see at least Weissman [0136] "The second localization solution can be selected responsive to the second localization solution falling within the first localization solution (stage 1710). Otherwise, the navigation unit 270 can select the first localization solution. The navigation unit 270 can use the selected navigation solution for navigating the vehicle through the navigable environment."]
As per claim 6, Weissman discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a control unit, configured to determine a highly accurate position of a vehicle [see at least Weissman [0004] "...a memory, and a processor coupled to the memory...The processor configured to determine a first localization solution associated with a location of the vehicle in a navigable environment using a radar transceiver of the navigation system, determine a second localization solution associated with the location of the vehicle in the navigable environment using a LiDAR transceiver, a camera, or both of the navigation system, select a localization solution from the first and second localization solutions based on whether an accuracy of the first localization exceeds an accuracy of the second localization solution, and navigate the vehicle through the navigable environment using the selected vehicle localization solution."], the control unit configured to:
perform several localization methods to determine an initial position, each localization method being configured to determine a respective position of the vehicle with a particular uncertainty, depending on the respective localization method, and a comparison of the respectively determined positions with their uncertainties is performed and the initial position is determined depending on the comparison [see at least Weissman FIG. 16 "1605 Determine a first localization solution associated with a location of the vehicle in a navigable environment using a radar transceiver of the navigation system"; "1610 Determine a second localization solution associated with the location of the vehicle in the navigable environment using a LiDAR transceiver of the navigation system"; "1615 Select a localization solution from the first and second localization solutions based on whether an accuracy of the first localization exceeds an accuracy of the second localization solution"; [0132] "Some localization solutions may determine a point that represents the estimated location of the vehicle within the navigable environment..."],
subsequently provide a map, starting from the initial position, the provided map at least partially representing an environment of the vehicle [see at least Weissman [0133] "One or more actions can be performed based on the localization solution (stage 1620). The navigation unit 270 can be configured to perform various actions based on the localization solution and an operating mode in which the vehicle is utilized. Where the vehicle is operating in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, the navigation system 270 can use the localization solution to navigate the vehicle through the navigable environment. ... the navigation unit 270 may navigate the vehicle using the localization solution and provide an alert to the driver that the vehicle is approaching a navigation destination."];
sense environmental data values using an environmental sensor system of the vehicle [see at least Weissman [0134] "…camera-based solutions may be used in addition to…the LiDAR based position solution."]
Weissman fails to disclose … determine the highly accurate position of the vehicle based on a comparison of the sensed environmental data values to the map. However, Wang teaches this limitation [see at least Wang [0043] "The goal of the localization module 301 is to determine with high accuracy a location of the ADV."; [0071] "...For each candidate cell traversed in the ADV coarse search space 410, a feature space of approximately 1024×1024 cells surrounding the candidate cell is compared to the HD map feature space 430 and a similarity score is determined for the candidate cell. ..."; [0045] "Localization module 301 can include a location module 301A,… a collect module 301D, an analysis module 301E… Collect module 301D periodically collects 3D point cloud and pose data from sensors of perception module 302. 3D point cloud represents sensor data surrounding the ADV. A location module 301A may obtain the 3D point cloud and pose data from collect module 301D."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Weissman to use … determine the highly accurate position of the vehicle based on a comparison of the sensed environmental data values to the map as disclosed in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more adaptable map generation regarding dynamic elements. [See at least Wang [0005].]
The combination of Weissman and Wang fails to disclose, “…wherein the comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map, each layer comprising environmental features with sensor-specific signatures corresponding to the type of environmental sensor”. However, Kulkarni teaches this limitation [see at least Kulkarni [0052] “…a matching algorithm can be used to compare the local radar signature (produced at block 460) with the reference radar map layer (obtained/downloaded at block 410), enabling the determination an X-Y location estimate for the vehicle 405 in space with respect to a global reference frame and the vehicle's heading direction.”; [0040] “Referring again to FIG. 1, as the vehicle 110 travels within a geographical region corresponding to an area of the HD map, the vehicle 110 use different sensors (e.g. sensors 205) to gather information for different corresponding map layers of the HD map. For example, one or more cameras (e.g., camera(s) 210) can be used to gather information for a camera map layer, radar (e.g., radar 235) can be used to gather information for a radar map layer, lidar may be used to gather information for a lidar map layer, and so forth.”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed in the combination of Weissman and Wang to use “…wherein the comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map, each layer comprising environmental features with sensor-specific signatures corresponding to the type of environmental sensor” as disclosed in Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved vehicle operation and safety of vehicle passengers. [See at least Kulkarni [0086].]
As per claim 7, Weissman discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program including instructions for determining a highly accurate position of a vehicle [see at least Weissman [0004] "...a memory, and a processor coupled to the memory...The processor configured to determine a first localization solution associated with a location of the vehicle in a navigable environment using a radar transceiver of the navigation system, determine a second localization solution associated with the location of the vehicle in the navigable environment using a LiDAR transceiver, a camera, or both of the navigation system, select a localization solution from the first and second localization solutions based on whether an accuracy of the first localization exceeds an accuracy of the second localization solution, and navigate the vehicle through the navigable environment using the selected vehicle localization solution."], the instructions, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
performing several localization methods to determine an initial position, each localization method being configured to determine a respective position of the vehicle with a particular uncertainty, depending on the respective localization method, and a comparison of the respectively determined positions with their uncertainties is performed and the initial position is determined depending on the comparison [see at least Weissman FIG. 16 "1605 Determine a first localization solution associated with a location of the vehicle in a navigable environment using a radar transceiver of the navigation system"; "1610 Determine a second localization solution associated with the location of the vehicle in the navigable environment using a LiDAR transceiver of the navigation system"; "1615 Select a localization solution from the first and second localization solutions based on whether an accuracy of the first localization exceeds an accuracy of the second localization solution"; [0132] "Some localization solutions may determine a point that represents the estimated location of the vehicle within the navigable environment..."],
subsequently providing a map, starting from the initial position, the provided map at least partially representing an environment of the vehicle [see at least Weissman [0133] "One or more actions can be performed based on the localization solution (stage 1620). The navigation unit 270 can be configured to perform various actions based on the localization solution and an operating mode in which the vehicle is utilized. Where the vehicle is operating in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, the navigation system 270 can use the localization solution to navigate the vehicle through the navigable environment. ... the navigation unit 270 may navigate the vehicle using the localization solution and provide an alert to the driver that the vehicle is approaching a navigation destination."];
sensing environmental data values using an environmental sensor system of the vehicle [see at least Weissman [0134] "…camera-based solutions may be used in addition to…the LiDAR based position solution."]
Weissman fails to disclose … determining the highly accurate position of the vehicle based on a comparison of the sensed environmental data values to the map. However, Wang teaches this limitation [see at least Wang [0043] "The goal of the localization module 301 is to determine with high accuracy a location of the ADV."; [0071] "...For each candidate cell traversed in the ADV coarse search space 410, a feature space of approximately 1024×1024 cells surrounding the candidate cell is compared to the HD map feature space 430 and a similarity score is determined for the candidate cell. ..."; [0045] "Localization module 301 can include a location module 301A,… a collect module 301D, an analysis module 301E… Collect module 301D periodically collects 3D point cloud and pose data from sensors of perception module 302. 3D point cloud represents sensor data surrounding the ADV. A location module 301A may obtain the 3D point cloud and pose data from collect module 301D."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program as disclosed in Weissman to use … determine the highly accurate position of the vehicle based on a comparison of the sensed environmental data values to the map as disclosed in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more adaptable map generation regarding dynamic elements. [See at least Wang [0005].]
The combination of Weissman and Wang fails to disclose, “…wherein the comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map, each layer comprising environmental features with sensor-specific signatures corresponding to the type of environmental sensor”. However, Kulkarni teaches this limitation [see at least Kulkarni [0052] “…a matching algorithm can be used to compare the local radar signature (produced at block 460) with the reference radar map layer (obtained/downloaded at block 410), enabling the determination an X-Y location estimate for the vehicle 405 in space with respect to a global reference frame and the vehicle's heading direction.”; [0040] “Referring again to FIG. 1, as the vehicle 110 travels within a geographical region corresponding to an area of the HD map, the vehicle 110 use different sensors (e.g. sensors 205) to gather information for different corresponding map layers of the HD map. For example, one or more cameras (e.g., camera(s) 210) can be used to gather information for a camera map layer, radar (e.g., radar 235) can be used to gather information for a radar map layer, lidar may be used to gather information for a lidar map layer, and so forth.”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program as disclosed in the combination of Weissman and Wang to use “…wherein the comparison comprises matching sensed environmental data values to one or more layers of the map, each layer comprising environmental features with sensor-specific signatures corresponding to the type of environmental sensor” as disclosed in Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved vehicle operation and safety of vehicle passengers. [See at least Kulkarni [0086].]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights