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, filed 2/6/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the claims present an improvement to the field of determining a position in a GPS denied environment such as a tunnel. Examiner finds this persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot.
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 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, 4-6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210326640 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Gagarin (US 8306747 B1) and Adams (US 20210182596 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a position estimation device configured to estimate a current position of a moving object moving inside a structure having a hollow shape, the position estimation device comprising (Abstract, Paragraphs 0085-0090, Fig. 8);
a first sensor (Paragraph 0028, 0030; “the capturing device 155 may also include other sensors and detection devices for mapping, such as a laser radar”);
at least one memory storing instructions (Paragraphs 0085-0090, Fig. 8);
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Paragraphs 0085-0090, Fig. 8);
from an inner wall of the structure (Paragraphs 0023, 0028; “The region 105 may be a region (such as a tunnel)”);
from the inner wall of the structure (Paragraphs 0023, 0028; “The region 105 may be a region (such as a tunnel)”);
acquire shape information of a surface of the inner wall of the structure around the moving object (Paragraphs 0023, 0028; “parameters such as a target distance, an azimuth, a height, a speed, a posture and even a shape”);
extract a feature portion indicating a shape change of the inner wall of the surface of the structure from the shape information (Paragraphs 0023, 0028-0029, 0050);
and extract feature information including a position of the feature portion (Paragraphs 0028-0029);
store, in advance, reference information including a position of a reference portion that is a reference for position estimation (Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0039);
and compare the feature information with the reference information and estimate the current position of the moving object (Abstract, Paragraphs 0059-0064).
Wang does not specifically state a second laser sensor, sensing the front and side of the vehicle with lasers, and acquiring shape information based on the first and second reflected laser light.
However, Gagarin teaches a second sensor (Claim 12; Second sensor is mapped to front or side laser sensors);
perform sensing of a side of the moving object by controlling the first sensor to emit first laser light to the side of the moving object and detect first reflected laser light reflected in response to the emitted first laser light (Claim 12; “providing side lasers and sensors mounted on sides of the vehicle”);
perform sensing of a front of the moving object by controlling the second sensor to emit second laser light to the front of the moving object and detect second reflected laser light reflected in response to the emitted second laser light (Claim 12; “providing front and rear lasers and sensors mounted on the vehicle”);
based on the first reflected laser light and the second reflected laser light (Claim 12; “providing distances to a pavement from the side lasers and sensors to the computer, sensing and recording heights of the sides of the vehicle above a surface of a travel way, providing front and rear lasers and sensors mounted on the vehicle and providing distances from the front and rear lasers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wang with a second laser sensor, sensing the front and side of the vehicle with lasers, and acquiring shape information based on the first and second reflected laser light of Gagarin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Wang and Gagarin discuss collecting measurements of roadway structures. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves accuracy of location measurements (Gagarin- Paragraph 0137).
Wang does not specifically state extract feature information including a size of the feature portion; store, in advance, reference information including a size of a reference portion that is a reference for position estimation.
However, Adams teaches extract feature information including a size of the feature portion (Paragraphs 0038, 0041, 0047);
store, in advance, reference information including a size of a reference portion that is a reference for position estimation (Paragraphs 0041, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wang with extracting a size of a feature and storing, in advance, a size of a reference portion of Adams with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that sizes of objects known in advance can be compared with sizes of objects detected by the vehicle. Based on the comparison, depth/distance of the vehicle from the object can be determined, which facilitates determining a location of the vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Wang with Adams as this achieves more accurate vehicle localization. As stated in Adams, “as maps representing an area proximate to the vehicle 402 are loaded into memory, one or more sizes or dimensions of objects associated with a location can be loaded into memory as well. In some examples, a known size or dimension of an object at a particular location in the environment may be used to determine a depth of a feature of an object relative to the vehicle 402 when determining a location of the vehicle 402” (Adams - Paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the at least one processor is configured to (Paragraphs 0085-0090, Fig. 8).
Wang does not specifically state acquiring scan results at predetermined distance intervals, and extracting the feature in each interval.
However, Gagarin teaches acquire scan results of each section obtained by dividing a traveling direction of the moving object at predetermined distance intervals (Paragraph 0168; “Generating spatial based sensor data at intervals specific to analysis measurement”);
and extract the feature portion in each of the sections (Paragraphs 0155-0161, 0168; “Extracting data in preparation for geometry construction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wang with acquiring scan results of sections, and extracting features in each section of Gagarin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Wang and Gagarin both discuss collecting measurements of roadway structures. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves data reduction and pre-processing (Gagarin – Paragraphs 0167-0169).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to (Paragraphs 0085-0090, Fig. 8).
Wang does not specifically state extract the feature portion based on intensity of the first reflected laser light and intensity of the second reflected laser light.
However, Gagarin teaches and extract the feature portion based on the reflected light intensity of the first reflected laser light and intensity of the second reflected laser light (Claim 12; “reflective signal strength to the computer, whereby the computer determines and records precise locations of the vehicle along the travel way, precise positions of the vehicle in the travel way, and precise slopes, grades and surface and subsurface conditions of the travel way”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wang with extracting features based on the first and second reflected laser lights of Gagarin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Wang and Gagarin both discuss collecting measurements of roadway structures. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves accuracy of location measurements (Gagarin- Paragraph 0137).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to (Paragraphs 0085-0090, Fig. 8);
compare a plurality of pieces of the feature information with a plurality of pieces of the reference information (Abstract, Paragraphs 0059-0064);
estimate the current position based on a plurality of comparison results (Abstract, Paragraphs 0059-0064).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses a position estimation method of estimating a current position of a moving object moving inside a structure having a hollow shape, the position estimation method comprising (Abstract, Paragraphs 0085-0090, Fig. 8);
comparing the feature information with reference information including a position of a reference portion that is a reference for position estimation (Abstract, Paragraphs 0059-0064);
Wang does not specifically state comparing the feature information with reference information including a size of a reference portion that is a reference for position estimation.
However, Adams teaches comparing the feature information with reference information including a size of a reference portion that is a reference for position estimation (Paragraphs 0041-0042, 0050-0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wang with comparing feature information with reference information including a size of Adams with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that sizes of objects known in advance can be compared with sizes of objects detected by the vehicle. Based on the comparison, depth/distance of the vehicle from the object can be determined, which facilitates determining a location of the vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Wang with Adams as this achieves more accurate vehicle localization. As stated in Adams, “as maps representing an area proximate to the vehicle 402 are loaded into memory, one or more sizes or dimensions of objects associated with a location can be loaded into memory as well. In some examples, a known size or dimension of an object at a particular location in the environment may be used to determine a depth of a feature of an object relative to the vehicle 402 when determining a location of the vehicle 402” (Paragraph 0050).
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a position estimation method of estimating a current position of a moving object moving inside a structure having a hollow shape, the program for causing the computer to execute (Abstract, Paragraphs 0085-0090, Fig. 8);
an estimation process of comparing the feature information with reference information including a position of a reference portion that is a reference for position estimation (Abstract, Paragraphs 0059-0064);
Wang does not specifically state an estimation process of comparing the feature information with reference information including a size of a reference portion that is a reference for position estimation.
However, Adams teaches an estimation process of comparing the feature information with reference information including a size of a reference portion that is a reference for position estimation (Paragraphs 0041-0042, 0050-0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wang with comparing feature information with reference information including a size of Adams with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that sizes of objects known in advance can be compared with sizes of objects detected by the vehicle. Based on the comparison, depth/distance of the vehicle from the object can be determined, which facilitates determining a location of the vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Wang with Adams as this achieves more accurate vehicle localization. As stated in Adams, “as maps representing an area proximate to the vehicle 402 are loaded into memory, one or more sizes or dimensions of objects associated with a location can be loaded into memory as well. In some examples, a known size or dimension of an object at a particular location in the environment may be used to determine a depth of a feature of an object relative to the vehicle 402 when determining a location of the vehicle 402” (Paragraph 0050).
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Gagarin, and Adams, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin (CN 105203551 A, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses distinguishing features from the surface of the structure.
Wang does not specifically state the shape change includes deterioration of the surface of the inner wall of the structure.
However, Yin teaches the shape change includes deterioration of the surface of the inner wall of the structure (Page 17 Paragraph 2 – Page 18 Paragraph 2, Figs. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wang with the shape change including deterioration of the inner wall of the structure of Yin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tunnel cracks pose safety hazards to vehicles that use the tunnel. It is necessary to fix these cracks before a disaster such as a tunnel collapse occurs. One would have been motivated to combine Wang with Yin as this achieves improved safety. As stated in Wang, “lining crack is the most common tunnel disease, is damage or instability important cause of collapse of the lining structure” (Page 2 Paragraph 4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Gagarin, and Adams, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Browning (US 20180005407 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses a size of the feature.
Wang does not specifically state the size of the feature portion is different from the size of the reference portion.
However, Browning teaches the size of the feature portion is different from the size of the reference portion (Paragraphs 0153-0154).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Wang with determining the size of the feature portion is different from the size of the reference portion of Browning with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the size of the detected feature may not match with the size of the reference portion due to differences in vehicle position and sensor positions. It is important for the vehicle to take into consideration detected size differences in order to more accurately localize the vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Wang with Browning as this achieves improved localization accuracy. As stated in Browning, “The localization component 1024 may include geometric/spatial determination logic 1036 to convert the perceived geometric and/or spatial differential into a real-world distance measurement, reflecting a separation distance between the location of capture of the current image data 1043 and the location of capture of imagelets of the selected point cloud 1035” (Paragraph 0154).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights