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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (“V2I Based Environment Perception for Autonomous Vehicles at Intersections”).
Regarding claim 1, Duan et al. (“V2I Based Environment Perception for Autonomous Vehicles at Intersections”) discloses:
A position estimating device comprising:
a processor configured to:
detect a first position of a vehicle traveling a predetermined road section at a first time, based on a fixed sensor installed on or near the predetermined road section (Figure 1 and 10-13, pages 4, -10, 11, an road-side unit (RSU) communicates a global map with the autonomous vehicle at a first time used to identify the position of the vehicle),
estimate a second position of the vehicle at a second time, based on the first position of the vehicle at the first time, the second time being a time when a vehicle-captured image representing a predetermined feature is generated by a vehicle-mounted camera mounted on the vehicle (Figures 1 and 10-13, pages 4, 9-10, 11, the autonomous vehicle uses a vehicle camera and LiDAR captured images at a second time along with the information from the roadside sensor terminal at a first time to detect objects), and
estimate a real-space position of the predetermined feature, based on the second position (Figures 1 and 10-13, pages 4, 9-10, 11, the detected objects can be located in the point cloud)
Regarding claim 4, Duan additionally discloses:
the processor is further configured to detect the predetermined feature from the vehicle-captured image generated at the second time (Figures 1 and 10-13, pages 4, 9-10, 11, the autonomous vehicle uses a vehicle camera and LiDAR captured images at a second time along with the information from the roadside sensor terminal at a first time to detect objects), wherein
the processor estimates the real-space position of the predetermined feature, based on the position of the predetermined feature in the vehicle-captured image and the second position (Figures 1 and 10-13, pages 4, 9-10, 11, the detected objects can be located in the point cloud)
Regarding claim 5, the structural elements of device claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 5. Thus, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by the use of the disclosed computing components, including Baidu Apollo autonomous driving developer kit and Velodyne LiDAR executing the disclosed processes.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan in view of Kim et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0176212).
Regarding claim 2, Duan discloses the device of the parent claim (claim 1).
Duan et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the fixed sensor is a surveillance camera that generates surveillance images representing the predetermined road section at predetermined intervals, the processor detects the position of the vehicle from each of the surveillance images generated at different times (pages 10-11, the RSU captures real-time images of the intersection; “real-time images” implies a stream of images taken at a predetermined interval of whatever the refresh rate of the system is), and
the processor estimates the second position, using the position of the vehicle detected from a surveillance image generated at a time closest to the second time of the surveillance images as the first position (page 11, the system uses the real-time global intersection perception information, in coordination with the vehicle camera/LiDar, to expand the automatic driving vehicle perception range and accuracy; the use of “real-time” information refers to using the most recently received data that is closest in time to the current moment)
Even assuming arguendo that Duan et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the fixed sensor is a surveillance camera that generates surveillance images representing the predetermined road section at predetermined intervals
Kim et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0176212) discloses:
wherein the fixed sensor is a surveillance camera that generates surveillance images representing the predetermined road section at predetermined intervals, the processor detects the position of the vehicle from each of the surveillance images generated at different times (paragraphs [0149], [0162]-[0166], the RSU can capture images at particular interviews for tracking the VRU (see also paragraph [0141] regarding vehicle) and the surrounding environment)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kim et al. with the system of Duan et al. such that the fixed sensor was a surveillance camera that generated surveillance images representing the predetermined road section at predetermined intervals as described in Kim. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of having “position…be measured/corrected more accurately using an image of an RSU” (paragraph [0045] of the Kim reference).
Regarding claim 3, Duan discloses the device of the parent claim (claim 1).
Duan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein depending on the difference between the first position and a first uncorrected position of the vehicle measured at the first time by a satellite positioning device mounted on the vehicle, the processor corrects a second uncorrected position of the vehicle measured at the second time by the satellite positioning device, thereby estimating the second position.
Kim discloses:
wherein depending on the difference between the first position and a first uncorrected position of the vehicle measured at the first time by a satellite positioning device mounted on the vehicle (paragraph [0148], position can be received by satellite, GNSS/GPS), the processor corrects a second uncorrected position of the vehicle measured at the second time by the satellite positioning device, thereby estimating the second position (paragraphs [0162], [0171], the vehicle positioning is corrected by way of the satellite positioning)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kim et al. with the system of Duan et al. such that the system corrects a second uncorrected position of the vehicle measured at the second time by the satellite positioning device as described in Kim. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of having “position…be measured/corrected more accurately using an image of an RSU” (paragraph [0045] of the Kim reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682