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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 03/30/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Mo claims amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
Claims 1-14 will be examined.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 04/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to claims 1-14, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the remarks, “Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is improper for at least two reasons: (i) the cited combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations, and (ii) there is no sufficient motivation to combine the references,” with regard to “elevated-road ramp” of Kumar, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prior art Kumar, is relied upon for teaching “an elevated-road ramp” and paragraph [0003] of Kumar describes problems an AV may face such as upward ramp (e.g. bridge ramp) in a road pattern while navigating in the predefined trajectory plan which may get complicated when slope of the road is narrow or curvy and therefore are challenging for the AVs to adjust the AVs direction. In addition, Kumar discloses in paragraph [0024], autonomous vehicle may localize itself in the detected position to navigate through the secure path point to reach the destination point and paragraph [0033] discloses a vehicle localization module 221, which address the Applicants stated need in paragraph [0007], “for new and improved solutions… for robust vehicle localization.”
Furthermore, the Applicant argues, “Fowe does not evaluate a candidate state's probability by comparing the map's elevation to the vehicle's relative change in elevation,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prior art Fowe defines this “relative change in elevation” as slope in paragraph [0046], slope of a road segment describes the difference between the starting elevation and ending elevation of the road segment, and paragraph [0117], ADAS vehicles use map-matching to accurately place the vehicle in the environment, map-matching is used to match the ADAS vehicle to a road segment, and road segment is connected to another road segment that is a downhill slope (i.e. elevated-road ramp).
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-14, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not withdrawn. The grounds for rejection in view of amended claims are provided below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 11-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOWE et al., US 20190346572, herein further known as Fowe, in view of KUMAR et al., US 20210300426, herein further known as Kumar.
Regarding claim 1, Fowe discloses localizing a vehicle (¶¶ [0031-0032], map-matching to plot a course for a probe or vehicle… [0037], map-matching controller… integrated with vehicles, [0113], accurate location of the vehicle location generated by map-matching) on a road of a road network (¶¶ [0002], [0029], [0044], [0159]), the method comprising: for a time step out of a plurality of consecutive time steps (¶¶ [0021-0026], real-time (e.g. streaming) probe measurements, [0035-0036], [0050], measurements in real time..): obtaining a set of candidate states for the vehicle on the road, each candidate state being representative of a potential location of the vehicle in the road network (¶¶ [0021], state of the probe (or vehicle), [0023], most probable state for the first probe [0028-0029], sliding window map-matcher (SWMM)… tracks previous states, past states, future states [0067-0070], hidden states); for each candidate state of the set of candidate states (¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0028-0029], [0067-0070]), determining a probability of the vehicle being in that candidate state based on a combined probability value (¶¶ [0036], order for probability may exhibit a natural clustering, a subsequent grouping may have a more distant probability, [0061-0064]) comprising: a probability associated with each previous candidate state determined at a preceding time step (¶¶ [0021], [0024], [0036], [0043], [0061], see also FIG. 2), a transition probability comprising a probability for the vehicle transitioning from each previous candidate state (¶¶ [0021], [0036], [0063-0064], [0067], [81-82]) determined at the preceding time step to that candidate state (¶¶ [0021-0026], real-time (e.g. streaming) probe measurements, [0035-0036], [0050], measurements in real time..), an emission probability comprising a probability for the vehicle being at that candidate state given an obtained GNSS position of the vehicle (¶¶ [0021], [0023-0024], [0026], [0068], hidden Markov model (HMM)), and an elevated-road probability (¶¶ [0024-0025], sliding window map-matcher (SWMM) probability calculation … for stacked bridges, [0029], bridges, [0068], double-decker bridge) comprising a probability of the vehicle being at that candidate state given an elevation characteristic of that candidate state and data representative of a relative change in elevation for the vehicle (¶¶ [0039], probe data may include a height or altitude, [0046], slope of a road segment describes the difference between the starting elevation and ending elevation of the road segment, [0147], Other contents of the database may include altitude or elevation); determining a sequence of candidate states (¶¶ [0021], state of the probe (or vehicle), [0023], most probable state for the first probe [0028-0029], sliding window map-matcher (SWMM)… tracks previous states, past states, future states [0067-0070], hidden states), over the plurality of consecutive time steps (¶¶ [0021-0026], real-time (e.g. streaming) probe measurements, [0035-0036], [0050], measurements in real time..), which is associated with a highest probability out of a plurality of possible sequences of candidate states (¶¶ [0061], [0064], [0082], [0132], highest probability of matching), wherein each of the plurality of possible sequences of candidate states includes one candidate state from each time step of the plurality of consecutive time steps (¶¶ [0021-0026], real-time (e.g. streaming) probe measurements, [0035-0036], [0050], measurements in real time..); outputting the road that the vehicle currently is on or a lane that the vehicle currently is in (¶¶ [0043], [0065], [0119], [0136], [0186], [0195], output path match measurement) based on the determined sequence of states that is associated with the highest probability (¶¶ [0061], [0064], [0082], [0132], highest probability of matching).
However, Fowe does not explicitly state an elevated-road ramp.
Kumar teaches an elevated-road ramp (¶¶ [0023], [0027], one or more parameters associated with the autonomous vehicle, elevation of ramp (247) along the navigation path of the vehicle, see also FIG. 2c).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Fowe the elevated-road ramp as taught by Kumar.
One would be motivated to modify Fowe in view of Kumar for the reasons stated in Kumar paragraph [0003], more robust method and system to face problems such as upward ramp or a downward ramp in a road pattern while navigating in the predefined trajectory plan. The upward ramp or the downward ramp in the road pattern may be common in a bridge ramp, roads in hilly terrain, a lane merging to a highway, multi-layer parking ramp and the like which may get complicated when slope of the road is narrow or curvy. The more robust method and system of Kumar aligns the AV with the road in a more appropriate manner to reduce the challenge for the AV to adjust the AVs direction.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fowe and Kumar disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Fowe discloses the obtained set of candidate states are all candidate states within a distance from one or more last received Global Navigation Satellite System, GNSS, positions of the vehicle (¶¶ [0021-0029], real-time, GNSS, [0038], GNSS absolute or relative position of the vehicle, [0106], dead reckoning, GPS or GNSS signal).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fowe and Kumar disclose all elements of claim 4 above.
Fowe discloses the obtained set of candidate states are all candidate states within a defined area enclosing the most recent two obtained GNSS positions of the vehicle (¶¶ [0021-0029], real-time (i.e. most recent two…), GNSS, [0038], GNSS absolute or relative position of the vehicle, [0106], dead reckoning, GPS or GNSS signal).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Fowe and Kumar disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Fowe discloses the method is performed using a sliding window approach (¶¶ [0024], [0035-0036]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Fowe and Kumar disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Fowe discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a computing device of a vehicle, causes the computing device to carry out the method (¶¶ [0006], [0175]).
Regarding claim 13 all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Fowe and Kumar disclose all elements of claim 13 above.
Fowe discloses a vehicle comprising an apparatus (¶¶ [0014], see also FIG 1, [0029], [0031-0034]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of as Fowe, and Kumar, in view of JUNG et al., US 20220111847, herein further known as Jung.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fowe and Kumar disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Fowe discloses the road network is represented by a set of polygonal chains, each polygonal chain comprising a plurality of connected line segments (¶¶ [0029], nodes and links between nodes in the road network, [0150], link/segment, node, a strand of links) of the road network (¶¶ [0002], [0029], [0044], [0159]), and wherein each candidate state (¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0028-0029], [0067-0070]) is defined by a respective line segment (¶¶ [0150], link/segment, node, a strand of links).
However, Fowe does not explicitly state line coinciding with a centerline of a corresponding lane.
Jung teaches line coinciding with a centerline of a corresponding lane (¶ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Fowe the line coinciding with a centerline of a corresponding lane as taught by Jung.
One would be motivated to modify Fowe in view of Jung for the reasons stated in Jung paragraph [0004], mor robust system and method wherein a vehicle will not deviate from the driving lane and collide with another vehicle or a curb, which forms a boundary of the road.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fowe, Kumar, and Jung, disclose all elements of claim 2 above.
Fowe discloses each polygonal chain out of the plurality of polygonal chains (¶¶ [0029], nodes and links between nodes in the road network, [0150], link/segment, node, a strand of links) is representative of a lane within the road network (¶¶ [0002], [0029], [0044], [0048], [0159]).
Furthermore Jung teaches each polygonal chain out of the plurality of polygonal chains is representative of a lane within the road network (¶ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Fowe each polygonal chain out of the plurality of polygonal chains is representative of a lane within the road network as taught by Jung.
One would be motivated to modify Fowe in view of Jung for the reasons stated in Jung paragraph [0004], mor robust system and method wherein a vehicle will not deviate from the driving lane and collide with another vehicle or a curb, which forms a boundary of the road.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of as Fowe, and Kumar, in view of SUDHOLT et al., EP 4287157 A1, herein further known as Sudholt.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fowe, and Kumar, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Fowe does not explicitly state the emission probability comprises a component modelled by a Gaussian distribution of an error distance between the obtained GNSS position and that candidate state.
Sudholt teaches the emission probability comprises a component modelled by a Gaussian distribution of an error distance between the obtained GNSS position and that candidate state (page 13, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Fowe the a component modelled by a Gaussian distribution of an error distance between the obtained GNSS position and that candidate state as taught by Sudholt.
One would be motivated to modify Fowe in view of Sudholt for the reasons stated in Sudholt, more robust system and methods of assigning lane information which increases the accuracy of target variables such as lane-specific and/or vehicle type-specific and/or driver-type-specific traffic flow information for road sections as dependent variables.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of as Fowe, and Kumar, in view of BAGESHWAR et al., US 11879969, herein further known as Bageshwar.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fowe, and Kumar, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Fowe discloses the elevated road probability (¶¶ [0024-0025], sliding window map-matcher (SWMM) probability calculation … for stacked bridges, [0029], bridges, [0068], double-decker bridge) by comparing the data representative of a relative change in elevation for the vehicle and the elevation characteristic of that candidate state (¶¶ [0039], probe data may include a height or altitude, [0046], slope of a road segment describes the difference between the starting elevation and ending elevation of the road segment, [0147], Other contents of the database may include altitude or elevation) such that a higher probability is assigned to each candidate state (¶¶ [0061], [0064], [0082], [0132], highest probability of matching) of the set of candidate states that is associated with an elevation characteristic defining an elevation-change when the data representative of a relative change in elevation for the vehicle (¶¶ [0024-0025], sliding window map-matcher (SWMM) probability calculation … for stacked bridges, [0029], bridges, [0068], double-decker bridge) indicates a relative change in elevation exceeding a first value than for those candidate states of the set of candidate states that are associated with an elevation characteristic defining no elevation-change (¶¶ [0039], probe data may include a height or altitude, [0046], slope of a road segment describes the difference between the starting elevation and ending elevation of the road segment, [0147], Other contents of the database may include altitude or elevation).
However, Fowe does not explicitly state an elevated-road ramp and a component modelled by a step function.
Kumar teaches an elevated-road ramp (¶¶ [0023], [0027], one or more parameters associated with the autonomous vehicle, elevation of ramp (247) along the navigation path of the vehicle, see also FIG. 2c).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Fowe the elevated-road ramp as taught by Kumar.
One would be motivated to modify Fowe in view of Kumar for the reasons stated in Kumar paragraph [0003], more robust method and system to face problems such as upward ramp or a downward ramp in a road pattern while navigating in the predefined trajectory plan. The upward ramp or the downward ramp in the road pattern may be common in a bridge ramp, roads in hilly terrain, a lane merging to a highway, multi-layer parking ramp and the like which may get complicated when slope of the road is narrow or curvy. The more robust method and system of Kumar aligns the AV with the road in a more appropriate manner to reduce the challenge for the AV to adjust the AVs direction.
Furthermore, Bageshwar teaches a component modelled by a step function (column 6, line 35, through column 7, line 35).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Fowe the component modelled by a step function as taught by Bageshwar.
One would be motivated to modify Fowe in view of Bageshwar for the reasons stated in Bageshwar more robust system and method to output compensated estimated vertical position.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of as Fowe, and Kumar, in view of HAYNES et al., US 20230339394, herein further known as Haynes.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fowe, and Kumar, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Fowe does not explicitly state for the time step out of the plurality of consecutive time steps: obtaining perception data comprising information about a surrounding environment of the vehicle; wherein the emission probability comprises: a lane marker similarity probability that is based on a comparison between lane marker representations from the obtained perception data and lane marker representations from map data for that candidate state; a road edge similarity probability that is based on a comparison between road edge representations from the obtained perception data and road edge representations from map data for that candidate state; a traffic sign similarity probability that is based on a comparison between traffic sign positions from the obtained perception data and traffic sign positions from map data for that candidate state; a road pole similarity probability that is based on a comparison between road pole positions from the obtained perception data and road pole positions from map data for that candidate state; and/or a tracked vehicle-based similarity probability that is based on a comparison between a position of a tracked vehicle from the obtained perception data and a road geometry from map data for that candidate state.
Haynes teaches (¶ [0098]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Fowe the tracked vehicle-based similarity probability that is based on a comparison between a position of a tracked vehicle from the obtained perception data and a road geometry from map data for that candidate state as taught by Haynes.
One would be motivated to modify Fowe in view of Haynes for the reasons stated in Haynes paragraph [0003], more robust system and method wherein cars and bicycles share the road, and reduce risk of accidents, collisions, and injuries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 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.As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights