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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17, 19-22, 24-26 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20250356648A1 (“Ahmed”).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: “visual perception system”, “position/navigation system”
Claim 24: “onboard assessment unit”, “offboard assessment unit”
Aforementioned limitations are interpreted as having structure provided by at least paragraph [0024] of the specification (micro processor or electronic controller, etc.)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, 19-20, 22, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN114219834A Zhang et al ("Zhang", previously cited) in view of US20190271550A1 ("Breed") and US20250356648A1 (“Ahmed”).
As per claims 1, 13, and 24 Zhang teaches the limitations of the system(s) and method:
A worksite control system comprising: a plurality of mobile machines each including: a visual perception system configured to capture perception data about a worksite; a position/navigation system configured to determine a machine location of the mobile machine; and an onboard electronic controller configured to: apply an object detection operation to the perception data to detect a visual marker; determine a detected marker position associated with the visual marker(Zhang at least “a method for updating traffic markers in a high-precision map, wherein the method is applied to a vehicle-mounted controller, the vehicle-mounted controller is also in communication connection with a vehicle-mounted camera and a vehicle-mounted positioning module”), assess an assessed marker health status associated with the visual marker derived from comparison of the detected visual marker with an assigned marker position (Zhang at least “position adjustment module is used for carrying out position adjustment on the first map position to obtain a second map position, the second calculation module is used for calculating an average projection error of a central point of the first object based on the second map position”); and transmit the assessed marker health status and the assigned marker position; and a central worksite server (Zhang at least “a server… to perform all or part of the steps of the method”) including: a transceiver configured to receive, from each of the plurality of mobile machines, the assessed marker heath status and the detected marker position; a data storage storing a worksite electronic map having the assigned marker position corresponding to the visual marker detected by each of the plurality of mobile machines; and a processor configured to: compare, for each of the plurality of mobile machines, the detected marker position with the assigned marker position to determine whether the visual marker has deviated from the assigned marker position; (Zhang at least “second map position of the traffic marker on the high-precision map is calculated …compared with the third map position corresponding to the position … map needs to be updated or supplemented is determined through an established strategy”)
Zhang does not disclose:
apply an object detection operation to the perception data to detect a same visual marker; determine a detected marker position associated with the same visual marker, assess determine, based on comparing the detected marker position with an assigned marker position associated with the same visual marker, an assessed marker health status associated with the same visual marker derived from comparison of the detected visual marker with an assigned marker position, wherein the assessed marker health status indicates one or more of a missing visual marker, an incorrect visual marker location, an incorrect visual marker orientation, a duplicate visual marker, an obstructed visual marker, or an obscured visual marker; and transmit the assessed marker health status and the assigned marker position; and a central worksite server including: a transceiver configured to receive, from each of the plurality of mobile machines, the assessed marker health status and the detected marker position; a data storage storing a worksite electronic map having the assigned marker position corresponding to the same visual marker detected by each of the plurality of mobile machines; and a processor configured to: compare, for each of the plurality of mobile machines, the detected marker position with the assigned marker position to determine whether the same visual marker has deviated from the assigned marker position; aggregate the assessed marker health status, associated with the same visual marker detected and independently determined by each of the plurality of mobile machines, wherein the assessed marker health status corresponds to whether a corresponding detected marker position deviated from the assigned marker position for the visual marker based on the comparing; determine, based on aggregating the assessed marker health status, an aggregated marker heath status associated with the same visual marker; and perform, based on the aggregated marker health status, a marker health status correction action for a mobile machine of the plurality of mobile machines,
Ahmed teaches the aforementioned limitations (Ahmed at least the abstract, [0070], [0068], [0008], [0012], [0016], [0044], [0049], [0075], FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ahmed with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to identify traffic features that require repair or replacement (Ahmed [0003]).
Zhang does not disclose:
wherein the marker health status correction action comprises directing the mobile machine under autonomous operation to travel to the same visual marker to gather additional perception data.
Breed teaches the aforementioned limitations (Breed at least [0053], [0153], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Breed with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to create accurate maps (Breed [0004]).
As per claim 2, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein the onboard electronic controller is further configured to assign the detected marker position associated with the same visual marker. (Zhang at least “calculating a first map location of the first object in the high-precision map based on the running video frame subsequence”)
As per claim 3, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein comparing the detected marker position with the assigned marker position comprises determining an inconsistency in one or more of a geographical location, a position, or an orientation, associated with the detected marker position. (Zhang at least “second map position of the traffic marker on the high-precision map is calculated …compared with the third map position corresponding to the position … map needs to be updated or supplemented is determined through an established strategy”)
As per claim 6, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to transmit corrective factors with the assessed marker health status. (Zhang at least “map needs to be updated”, “communication connection between the network element of the system and at least one other network element is realized through at least one communication interface”)
As per claim 7, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to weigh the plurality of the assessed marker health status based on the corrective factors. (Zhang at least “when the average projection error is smaller than a preset projection error threshold value and the frame number of the driving video frame subsequence is larger than a preset video frame number, searching a third map position of the first object in the high-precision map based on the second map position; and if the distance between the third map position and the second map position is greater than the preset distance threshold, generating updating information ”)
As per claim 8, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein the marker health status correction action further comprises one or more of updating the worksite electronic map; modifying an activity regarding the mobile machine; or requesting confirmation regarding the same visual marker. (Zhang at least “vehicle-mounted controller can generate the update information of the traffic marker based on the driving video frame sequence acquired by the vehicle-mounted camera and send the update information to the map provider so as to facilitate the map provider to update the traffic marker”)
As per claim 9, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein the assessed marker health status indicates one or more of a missing visual marker, an incorrect visual marker location for the visual marker, the incorrect orientation of the visual marker, or the duplicate visual markers. (Zhang at least the abstract)
As per claim 12, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein the visual perception system is one or more of a LIDAR device, a smart camera, or a radar. (Zhang at least the abstract, “camera”)
As per claim 14, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein comparing comprises determining whether the same visual marker has deviated from the assigned marker position. (Zhang at least “second map position of the traffic marker on the high-precision map is calculated …compared with the third map position corresponding to the position … map needs to be updated or supplemented is determined through an established strategy”)
As per claim 15, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein determining whether the visual marker has deviated from the assigned marker position comprises determining that the visual marker is indicative of each of the plurality of assessed marker health statuses indicates one or more of a missing visual marker, an incorrect location for the visual marker, an incorrect orientation of the visual marker, or duplicate visual markers. (Zhang at least “second map position of the traffic marker on the high-precision map is calculated …compared with the third map position corresponding to the position … map needs to be updated or supplemented is determined through an established strategy”)
As per claim 19, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein receiving the plurality of detected marker positions comprises receiving at least one of the plurality of detected marker positions in a local electronic map generated by the mobile machine. (Zhang at least “vehicle-mounted controller can generate the update information of the traffic marker based on the driving video frame sequence acquired by the vehicle-mounted camera and send the update information to the map provider so as to facilitate the map provider to update the traffic marker”)
As per claim 20, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein performing the marker health status correction further comprises one or more of: updating a worksite electronic map; modifying an activity regarding the mobile machine; or requesting confirmation regarding the same visual marker. (Zhang at least “vehicle-mounted controller can generate the update information of the traffic marker based on the driving video frame sequence acquired by the vehicle-mounted camera and send the update information to the map provider so as to facilitate the map provider to update the traffic marker”)
As per claim 22, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
receiving, from the mobile machine, corrective factors with the plurality of assessed marker health status, wherein the aggregating assessed marker health status is based on the corrective factors. (Zhang at least “positioning information”, “running track information”, “calculating an average projection error of the center point of the first object based on the second map location”)
As per claim 25, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang additionally teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a confidence level for the aggregated marker health status based on a degree of consistency among the detected marker position received from the plurality of mobile machines, wherein the marker health status correction action is performed based on the confidence level satisfying a threshold. (Zhang at least “if the distance between the third map position and the second map position is greater than the preset distance threshold, generating updating information and sending the updating information to a map provider of the high-precision map”)
As per claim 26, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang does not disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to select the mobile machine directed to travel to the visual marker based on at least one of a viewing angle, proximity to the visual marker, or a prior detection history of the visual marker by the mobile machine.
Breed teaches the aforementioned limitation (Breed at least [0273]: “As a vehicle travels down a road and discovers an accident for example, a photograph of that accident can be stored and uploaded to the Internet for interpretation by a human operator or an algorithm which can download a message based on the map location of the accident to warn other vehicles in the vicinity until the accident is cleared up, which can be determined by another probe vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Breed with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
Claim(s) 10-11, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Breed, and Ahmed in further view of US20220130294A1 Scheufler et al ("Scheufler", previously cited).
As per claim 10, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang does not disclose:
wherein the onboard electronic controller assesses the assessed marker health status is indicative of one or more of an obstructed visual marker or an obscured visual marker.
Scheufler teaches the aforementioned limitations (Scheufler at least [0011], [0021-0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Scheufler with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the visual quality of signage (Scheufler [0040]).
As per claim 11, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang does not disclose:
wherein the assessed marker health status is indicative of an accumulation to the obscured visual marker due to mud, dirt, snow, and/or ice.
Scheufler teaches the aforementioned limitations (Scheufler at least [0011], [0021-0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Scheufler with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 10.
As per claim 16, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang does not disclose:
wherein determining whether the visual marker has deviated from the assigned marker position comprises determining that the visual marker is indicative of one or more of an obscured visual marker or an obstructed visual marker.
Scheufler teaches the aforementioned limitation (Scheufler at least [0034]). *Examiner’s note: here Scheufler teaches correlating a location and the dirtiness (thus the obscuring or obstruction) of the visual marker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Scheufler with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to estimate if a surface is dirty (Scheufler [0033]).
As per claim 17, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang does not disclose:
wherein the assessed marker health status is indicative of an accumulation to the obscured visual marker due to mud, dirt, snow, and/or ice.
Scheufler teaches the aforementioned limitation (Scheufler at least [0034]). *Examiner’s note: here Scheufler teaches correlating a location and the dirtiness of the visual marker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Scheufler with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 16.
Claim(s) 4-5, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Breed, and Ahmed in further view of US20230306573A1 Dickson et al ("Dickson", previously cited).
As per claim 4, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang does not disclose:
wherein assessed marker health status detected by ach of the plurality of mobile machines is aggregated using one or more a majority model or a weighted analysis model.
Dickson teaches the aforementioned limitation (Dickson at least [0125-0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Davidson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve detection accuracy (Dickson [0066]).
As per claim 5, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang does not disclose:
wherein the majority model outputs the aggregated marker heath status from a majority among a plurality of assessed marker health statuses associated with the visual marker detected by each of the plurality of mobile machines.
Dickson teaches the aforementioned limitation (Dickson at least [0125-0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Scheufler with the aforementioned limitations taught by Davidson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 4.
As per claim 21, Zhang in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Zhang does not disclose:
wherein aggregating the assessed marker health status comprises applying one of a majority model or a weighted analysis model to determine the aggregate marker health status from the plurality of assessed marker health statuses.
Dickson teaches the aforementioned limitation (Dickson at least [0125-0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Scheufler with the aforementioned limitations taught by Davidson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve detection accuracy (Dickson [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights