Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 01 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) and 101 as set forth in the office action of 04 September 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) and 101 as set forth in the office action of 04 September 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 04 September 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments appear to be focused on the limitations “measuring, based on having determined the dead reckoning location estimate using dead reckoning, a reflection of the at least one ranging signal from a particular one of the second objects to determine at least one of an angle from the vehicle to the particular one of the second objects or a distance between the vehicle and the particular one of the second objects; determining a second-map-data location estimate, of the vehicle, based on the dead reckoning location estimate, ... and based on at least one of the angle ... or the distance ...”-
Examiner would first like to focus on the limitations “measuring, based on having determined the dead reckoning location estimate using dead reckoning, a reflection ...; determining a second-map-data location estimate ... based on the dead reckoning location estimate” (emphasis added), and Applicant’s support for such. The only part of Applicant’s specification that could be associated with [the measuring the reflection being based on having determined the dead reckoning location and the determining the second-map-data location estimate to be based on the dead reckoning location] is in [0065] of Applicant’s as-filed specification which states “The corresponding location estimate determined at stage 930 by dead reckoning corresponds in time with the location estimate determined at stage 940. For example, a corresponding dead reckoning location estimate is determined from sensor measurement(s) most closely corresponding in time to the ranging signal measurements (e.g., time(s) of arrival of the measured ranging signal(s)) yielding the location estimate determined at stage 940” which merely indicates that the dead reckoning location estimate (stage 930) and second-map-data location estimate (stage 940) determinations correspond in time. And such concept/limitations are disclosed by Ghadiok in at least Figure 2, [0041], [0058], [0064], [0075], [0079], [0080], [0082], [0092] and [0106] – Ghadiok discloses using secondary location systems such as dead-reckoning systems to determine location estimates (aka dead reckoning location estimate) while traversing, then as the vehicle is traversing and determining such dead reckoning location estimate(s), the vehicle detects and determines when a landmark/object’s distance to the vehicle is less than a threshold using landmark/object parameters (e.g. pose of object with respect to vehicle, distance/angle of object to the vehicle) by using rangefinding systems/sensors such as LIDAR, RADAR, TOF, etc. (which are systems/sensors that transmit ranging signal(s) and measure a reflection of such ranging signal(s) in order to determine distances) in order to determine a higher precision location estimate (aka second-map-data location estimate) that can be used to refine the concurrently recorded location estimates using the secondary location systems such as dead reckoning system (corresponding in time). Therefore, Ghadiok’s disclosure includes/discloses the argued limitations because while measuring location estimate using dead reckoning systems, it is concurrently measuring its distance to an object using rangefinding systems such as LIDAR, RADAR and TOF (very well known in the art as systems/sensors that transmit ranging signal(s) and measure its reflection from an object) so that once its distance is less than a threshold, it can use pose, distance, orientation/angle to the object determined using the rangefinding systems to determine another location estimate that’s concurrent (correspond in time) with the secondary/dead reckoning location estimate and can be used to correct the error(s) of the dead reckoning location estimate as they correspond to each other.
NOTE: If Applicant’s intention of the limitations “... based on having determined the dead reckoning location estimate using dead reckoning ... based on the dead reckoning location estimate” in the above limitations is not as understood by the Examiner from paragraph [0065] of Applicant’s specification as explained above, then Examiner requests Applicant to provide further clarification and point to the support in the specification to avoid a 35 USC 112(a) rejection from becoming necessary later.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: While Examiner understands “second-map-data location estimate” recited in the amended claims corresponds to the location estimate determined at stage 940 in Applicant’s specification, the specification currently fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter/language.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 are missing punctuation (e.g. a comma “,”) before the “wherein the second location estimate ...” limitations. Appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: both instances of “the apparatus” in the second to last limitation of claim 6 should be amended to recite “the ego vehicle” for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) the “wherein ..., the dead reckoning location estimate is a second location estimate, wherein the dead reckoning location estimate is a second location estimate” should be amended to avoid repetition 2) the “determining” in the last limitation of claim 7 should be amended to recite “determine” to match the claim grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadiok (US20220026232A1) in view of Giurgiu (US20170277716A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ghadiok discloses an apparatus, of an ego vehicle (see at least Figure 10), comprising: at least one memory (see at least Figure 10 and [0058]); at least one motion sensor (Figure 10 and [0058]) at least one receiver (see at least Figure 10 and [0058]); and at least one processor, communicatively coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one motion sensor and the at least one receiver (see at least Figure 10 and [0058]), configured to: obtain first map data including first identifiers of first objects and including first locations corresponding to the first objects (see at least [0006], [0007], [0048], [0073], [0074], [0104] and [0105]); obtain second map data including second identifiers of second objects and including second locations corresponding to the second objects (see at least [0006], [0007], [0048], [0073], [0074], [0104] and [0105]); determine a dead reckoning location estimate, of the ego vehicle, using dead reckoning and based on measurements from the at least one motion sensor (see at least [0041], [0058] and [0059]); transmit at least one ranging signal from the ego vehicle (see at least [0058] and [0079]); measure, based on having determined the dead reckoning location estimate using dead reckoning, a reflection of the at least one ranging signal from a particular one of the second objects to determine at least one of an angle from the ego vehicle to the particular one of the second objects or a distance between the ego vehicle and the particular one of the second objects (see at least Figure 2, [0041], [0058], [0064], [0075], [0079], [0080], [0082] and [0106]); determine a second-map-data location estimate, of the ego vehicle, based on the dead reckoning location estimate, and based on at least a particular one of the second locations, corresponding to the particular one of the second objects, and at least one of the angle from the apparatus to the particular one of the second objects or the distance between the apparatus and the particular one of the second objects (see at least Figure 2, [0003], [0008], [0041] and [0079]-[0092]); and perform an autonomous driving operation based on the second-map-data location estimate (see at least [0100]).
Ghadiok discloses the locations corresponding to the objects having a sub-meter or sub-0.5m accuracy and assigning a respective trust score to the locations corresponding to the objects (see at least [0073], [0104] and [0109]). However, Giurgiu is used to expedite prosecution. Giurgiu teaches the first locations having first uncertainties each of at least a first threshold distance, and the first locations having a first density of the first locations per unit of area; the second locations having second uncertainties each of less than a second threshold distance, wherein the first threshold distance is at least twice the second threshold distance, wherein the second locations have a second density of the second locations per the unit of area, and wherein the first density is higher than the second density (see at least [0040], [0042], [0043], [0049]; First Examiner notes that the corresponding limitations in Applicant’s independent claims are merely standalone limitations without any direct connection to any other limitation, e.g. none of the following limitations uses “first uncertainties”, “first threshold distance”, “first density”, “second uncertainties”, “second threshold distance”, and “second density” or any of their relations together. Giurgiu teaches that map data(s) include locations of objects and that these locations have uncertainty values, wherein when one vehicle initially detects an object, “the location uncertainty value is high” and “as more vehicles detect the same object, the location uncertainty value decreases”, therefore a unit of area/region of map data(s) of Giurgiu comprise locations having uncertainty values corresponding to objects that have only been detected by one vehicle which correspond to the first locations, the first uncertainties and the first objects and the unit of area/region of map data(s) of Giurgiu then also comprises locations having uncertainty values corresponding to objects that have been detected by plurality of vehicles which correspond to the second locations, the second uncertainties and the second objects, Giurgiu teaching that “as more vehicles detect the same object, the location uncertainty value decreases” suggests that when enough vehicles detect the same object, at some point, the location uncertainty value(s) of the object(s) detected multiple times (second objects) will be second uncertainties each of less than some sort of threshold distance (second) which is, at some point, half of a threshold distance (first) associated with the uncertainty value(s) associated with location(s) of object(s) which have only been detected once; and for the unit of area/region, all objects in that region have been at least detected by one vehicle to be identified as an object while only a subset of the objects have been detected by the plurality of vehicles as time progresses; therefore, the first locations have a first density that is higher than second density associated with the second locations). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ghadiok to incorporate the teachings of Giurgiu which teaches the first locations having first uncertainties each of at least a first threshold distance, and the first locations having a first density of the first locations per unit of area; the second locations having second uncertainties each of less than a second threshold distance, wherein the first threshold distance is at least twice the second threshold distance, wherein the second locations have a second density of the second locations per the unit of area, and wherein the first density is higher than the second density since they are both directed to map data(s) including locations corresponding to objects and incorporation of the teachings of Giurgiu would increase accuracy of the overall system by identifying which objects have which uncertainties and being more aware of the attributes of the objects in the map data(s).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, claims 1 and 11 are commensurate in scope with claim 6. See rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 16, Ghadiok discloses a non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising processor-readable instructions to cause at least one processor of an apparatus, of an ego vehicle, to (see at least [0058]). The rest of claim 16 is commensurate in scope with claim 6. See rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadiok (US20220026232A1) in view of Giurgiu (US20170277716A1) in further view of Shuman (US20220353688A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ghadiok as modified by Giurgiu discloses wherein the second-map-data location estimate is a third location estimate (see at least Ghadiok [0003], [0008], [0083], [0085] and [0092]), wherein the dead reckoning location estimate is a second location estimate (see at least [0041], [0058] and [0059]), and wherein the second location estimate corresponds to a second time (see at least Ghadiok [0041] and [0059]); and determining an adjusted location estimate corresponding to the second time based at least in part on the second location estimate and the third location estimate (see at least Ghadiok [0041]).
Ghadiok does not explicitly discuss the details of dead-reckoning and therefore does not explicitly disclose obtain a first location estimate, of the ego vehicle, corresponding to a first time, wherein the second location estimate is relative to the first location estimate. However, Shuman teaches obtain a first location estimate, of the ego vehicle, corresponding to a first time, wherein the second location estimate is relative to the first location estimate (see at least [0062] and [0112]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ghadiok as modified by Giurgiu to incorporate the teachings of Shuman which teaches obtain a first location estimate, of the ego vehicle, corresponding to a first time, wherein the second location estimate is relative to the first location estimate since they are directed to dead-reckoning and incorporation of the teachings of Shuman would increase the reliability of the overall system by incorporating the explicit details of dead-reckoning.
Regarding claim 10, Ghadiok does not explicitly discuss the details of dead-reckoning and therefore does not explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the first location estimate comprises receiving the first location estimate from a satellite position system receiver of the vehicle. However, Shuman teaches wherein obtaining the first location estimate comprises receiving the first location estimate from a satellite position system receiver of the vehicle (see at least [0062] and [0112]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ghadiok as modified by Giurgiu to incorporate the teachings of Shuman which teaches wherein obtaining the first location estimate comprises receiving the first location estimate from a satellite position system receiver of the vehicle since they are directed to dead-reckoning and incorporation of the teachings of Shuman would increase the reliability of the overall system by incorporating the explicit details of dead-reckoning.
Regarding claims 2/12/17 and 5/15/20, claims 2/12/17 and 5/15/20 are commensurate in scope with claims 7 and 10, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 7 and 10.
Claims 3, 8, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadiok (US20220026232A1) in view of Giurgiu (US20170277716A1) in further view of Shuman (US20220353688A1) in yet further view of Watanabe (WO2019093316A1 – translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Ghadiok as modified by Giurgiu and Shuman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to calibrate at least one of the at least one motion sensor based on the second location estimate and at least one of the third location estimate or the adjusted location estimate. However, Watanabe teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to calibrate at least one of the at least one motion sensor based on the second location estimate and at least one of the third location estimate or the adjusted location estimate (see at least [0006], [0014]-[0016] and [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ghadiok as modified by Giurgiu and Shuman to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe which teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to calibrate at least one of the at least one motion sensor based on the second location estimate and at least one of the third location estimate or the adjusted location estimate since they are directed to dead-reckoning and incorporation of the teachings of Watanabe would increase accuracy of the overall system (see at least Watanabe [0006]).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18, claims 3, 13 and 18 are commensurate in scope with claims 7 and 8. See above for rejection of claims 7 and 8.
Claims 4, 9, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadiok (US20220026232A1) in view of Giurgiu (US20170277716A1) in further view of Shuman (US20220353688A1) in yet further view of Shin (US20190316929A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ghadiok as modified by Giurgiu and Shuman fails to disclose wherein to determine the third location estimate the at least one processor is configured to: determine a separation between a first pair member, of a pair of the first objects, and a second pair member, of the pair of the first objects; determine a first adjusted location of the first pair member based on the separation between the first pair member and the second pair member; and determine the third location estimate based on the first adjusted location of the first pair member. However, Shin teaches wherein to determine the third location estimate the at least one processor is configured to: determine a separation between a first pair member, of a pair of the first objects, and a second pair member, of the pair of the first objects; determine a first adjusted location of the first pair member based on the separation between the first pair member and the second pair member; and determine the third location estimate based on the first adjusted location of the first pair member (see at least [0013], [0026], [0029] and [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ghadiok as modified by Giurgiu and Shuman to incorporate the teachings of Shin which teaches wherein to determine the third location estimate the at least one processor is configured to: determine a separation between a first pair member, of a pair of the first objects, and a second pair member, of the pair of the first objects; determine a first adjusted location of the first pair member based on the separation between the first pair member and the second pair member; and determine the third location estimate based on the first adjusted location of the first pair member since they are directed to vehicle location determination and incorporation of the teachings of Shin would increase accuracy and reliability of the overall system by incorporating an additional useful location estimate determination method.
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 19, claims 4, 14 and 19 are commensurate in scope with claim 9. See above for rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667