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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments, filed 23 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Duan does not disclose “detect[ing] a first position” and “estimating a second position…at a second time…based on the first position of the vehicle at the first time”. See Arguments at 5. Further, applicant argues that Duan fails to teach “estimat[ing] a real-space position of the predetermined feature, based on the second position”. Id. Regarding both of these features, applicant contends that “Duan does not distinguish between…different times” and “Duan fails to teach distinguishing between a ‘first time’ and a ‘second time’, the second time specifically ‘being a time when a vehicle captured image representing a predetermined feature is generated”. Id. The Examiner does not agree.
Initially, the Examiner notes that instant claim 1 itself does not distinguish the first and second times as different. The claim notes a “first time” tied to when a fixed sensor detects the first position of the vehicle and a “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”. The claim does not require the two times to be different, contrary to applicant’s assertion. Rather, the two times noted instead relate to two separate events which may or may not occur at the same time: 1) the time when detection of the first position by the fixed sensor occurs; and 2) the time when the vehicle-mounted camera captures an image. As noted in the non-final rejection, Duan discloses detection of the vehicle via a road-side unit (RSU) that communicates a global map with the autonomous vehicle at a first time and the vehicle camera/LIDAR capturing images (see Duan, Figures 1 and 10-13, pages 4, 9-10, and 11). Applicant does not appear to contest that either of these events occur; as such, applicant’s arguments that Duan does not disclose the two recited “times” is unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 4, applicant additionally argues that Duan does not explicitly disclose “estimat[ing] the real-space position of the predetermined feature, based on a position of the predetermined feature in the vehicle-captured image and the second position”. In support of this argument, applicant contends that “merely detecting vehicles from point cloud data cannot be said to teach ‘estimate[ing] the real-space position of the predetermined feature, based on a position of the predetermined feature in the vehicle captured image and the second position.’” The Examiner does not agree. As noted above, the second position refers to an estimated position of the vehicle at a second time. As the system cooperatively uses both the roadside sensor and the car’s vehicle camera/LIDAR captured images to chart the position of objects relative to the vehicle, Duan necessarily discloses “estimat[ing] the real-space position of the predetermined feature, based on a position of the predetermined feature in the vehicle-captured image and the second position” as recited in claim 4.
Claims 1 and 4-6 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claim 3 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as detailed below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in condition for allowance.
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, 9 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 a 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) 3 is 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 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights