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 . Claims 1-6 were previously pending, of which claims 1 and 4 were amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 1-6 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “based the position” but should instead recite --based on the position--.
Claim 4 recites “as the vehicle travel” but should instead recite --as the vehicle travels--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onomura (US 2019/0056512 A1) in view of Iimura (JP 2021-179324 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon) and Yang (CN 112797998 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 9/11/2025 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Onomura discloses a vehicle position estimation system comprising: a processor and a memory storing instructions configured to implement: a first error obtaining part that obtains a first error indicating an error in Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) information obtained by a vehicle GNSS receiver (see at least Figs. 1-3, [0032, 0044, 0068] - a GPS signal containing information on a self-position, which is a current position, of the unmanned vehicle 1, from a GPS satellite… measurement error); a second error obtaining part that obtains a second error indicating an autonomous navigation error (see at least Figs. 1-3, [0034, 0044, 0068, 0071] - inertial navigation unit 15 may measure a position, a velocity, and other factors of the unmanned vehicle 1 by using a gyroscope or an accelerometer, without using radio waves from outside… measurement error); a third error obtaining part that obtains a third error (see at least Figs. 1-3, [0035, 0037, 0044, 0068, 0071] - geonavigation unit 16 may obtain information on a self-position of the unmanned vehicle 1 on the basis of the shape of a coastline observed from the unmanned vehicle 1 in the implementation of the technology… celonavigation unit 17 may obtain information on a self-position of the unmanned vehicle 1 on the basis of celestial information observed from the unmanned vehicle 1… measurement error); and a position estimating part that selects a position estimation method with a smallest error among the first error, the second error, and the third error (see at least Figs. 1-3, [0044, 0068-0071] - In a case where the GPS use propriety determining unit 21 determines the GPS position as being suitable for use in step S5, that is, step S5 is “YES”, the controller 20 may make the composite navigation unit 23 select the GPS navigation method based on the GPS position as a navigation method with the highest accuracy or the least measurement error, as illustrated in FIG. 7 (step S6)…. In a case where the GPS use propriety determining unit 21 determines the GPS position as being unsuitable for use in step S5, that is, step S5 is “NO”… the controller 20 may make the composite navigation unit 23 select one method with the highest accuracy or the least measurement error from among inertial navigation, geonavigation, and celonavigation, on the basis of the GPS unavailable time measured in step S7 (step S8).), and estimates a position of the vehicle in a width direction of the road, using a selected position estimation method (see at least [0017, 0032, 0034, 0035, 0037]), wherein autonomous navigation of the vehicle is performed based the position of the vehicle using the selected position estimation method (see at least [0034, 0035, 0037, 0044-0045]).
Onomura does not appear to explicitly disclose a GNSS receiver that includes information on an error circle of the GNSS position information, the first error indicating an error circle radius as a first error; the third error indicating an error occurring upon detecting a marking included in an image obtained by photographing a road around the vehicle.
Iimura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a GNSS receiver that includes information on an error circle of the GNSS position information, the first error indicating an error circle radius as a first error (see at least [0020, 0025-0029] – error circle indicating the positioning accuracy of the position of the GNSS receiver 1… radius of the error circle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Iimura into the invention of Onomura with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving positioning accuracy in a global positioning satellite system (Iimura – [0006]). Onomura teaches a plurality of different methods of determining vehicle position and the error associated therewith, and using the method with the least error for the most accurate results. Therefore it would have been obvious to implement Iimura’s method of determining GNSS positioning error into the plurality of different methods, since incorporating the known method of determining vehicle position error by using the error circle radius for GNSS position information would have yielded predictable results.
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the third error indicating an error occurring upon detecting a marking included in an image obtained by photographing a road around the vehicle (see at least [0035, 0074] - comparing and matching the lane line information (such as the lane line type, color and distance between the vehicle-mounted camera and the lane line) identified by on-board sensors (such as on-board stereo cameras, lidar, etc.) with the lane and lane line information obtained from the high-precision map, and performing lane-level positioning and lane matching of the vehicle based on the comparison and matching results); and estimates a position of the vehicle in a width direction of the road, using a selected position estimation method (see at least [0035, 0074] - comparing and matching the lane line information (such as the lane line type, color and distance between the vehicle-mounted camera and the lane line) identified by on-board sensors (such as on-board stereo cameras, lidar, etc.) with the lane and lane line information obtained from the high-precision map, and performing lane-level positioning and lane matching of the vehicle based on the comparison and matching results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Yang into the invention of Onomura with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of accurately determining the current position of the vehicle in real-time even when the vehicle is traveling at high speeds (Yang – [0042]). Onomura teaches a plurality of different methods of determining vehicle position and the error associated therewith, and using the method with the least error for the most accurate results. Therefore it would have been obvious to implement Yang’s method of determining vehicle position into the plurality of different methods, since incorporating another method of determining vehicle position provides the improvement of enhancing the accuracy in situations where a camera may be the most accurate method of determining position of the vehicle. Furthermore, autonomous vehicles need to account for lateral and longitudinal positioning and deviations for accurate and safe control, and therefore estimating the position in the width direction of the road would be necessary for safe operation and doing so would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Onomura discloses wherein the position estimating part performs estimation of a position of the vehicle every predetermined cycle (see at least Fig. 3, [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Onomura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the third error is a difference between a lane width of a lane calculated based on a marking included in the image and a lane width of the lane identified based on map information, the lane being a lane in which the vehicle is traveling.
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the third error is a difference between a lane width of a lane calculated based on a marking included in the image and a lane width of the lane identified based on map information, the lane being a lane in which the vehicle is traveling (see at least Fig. 4, [0016, 0035, 0074] – width of the current lane and/or adjacent lanes… The width wi of the lane is obtained, and in step S27, the lane width of the current lane calculated based on the lateral distance information of the lane line identified and output by the on-board stereo camera 10 (i.e., the sum of the lateral distances to the two adjacent lane lines on the left and right sides output by the on-board stereo camera 10) is compared and determined to be consistent with the width of the i-th lane of the current road in the map data, so as to further improve the reliability and accuracy of the matching. For example, it is determined whether the difference (|wi-(d2+d3)|) between the width wi of the i-th lane of the current road obtained from the high-precision map and the sum of the distances (d2+d3) from the on-board stereo camera 10 to the two adjacent lane lines on the left and right sides output by the on-board stereo camera 10 is less than the width deviation threshold T1 (see Figure 4 for understanding).).
The motivation to combine Onomura and Yang is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Onomura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the lane width of the lane calculated based on the marking included in the image is accumulated at points as the vehicle travel in chronological order, and a comparison is made between a lane width at a point calculated based on the image including the point among accumulated lane widths, and a lane width at the point identified based on the map information, the point being a point where the vehicle is currently located.
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the lane width of the lane calculated based on the marking included in the image is accumulated at points as the vehicle travel in chronological order, and a comparison is made between a lane width at a point calculated based on the image including the point among accumulated lane widths, and a lane width at the point identified based on the map information, the point being a point where the vehicle is currently located (see at least Fig. 4, [0016, 0035, 0074] – width of the current lane and/or adjacent lanes… the width wi of the lane is obtained, and in step S27, the lane width of the current lane calculated based on the lateral distance information of the lane line identified and output by the on-board stereo camera 10 (i.e., the sum of the lateral distances to the two adjacent lane lines on the left and right sides output by the on-board stereo camera 10) is compared and determined to be consistent with the width of the i-th lane of the current road in the map data, so as to further improve the reliability and accuracy of the matching. For example, it is determined whether the difference (|wi-(d2+d3)|) between the width wi of the i-th lane of the current road obtained from the high-precision map and the sum of the distances (d2+d3) from the on-board stereo camera 10 to the two adjacent lane lines on the left and right sides output by the on-board stereo camera 10 is less than the width deviation threshold T1 (see Figure 4 for understanding).).
The motivation to combine Onomura and Yang is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Onomura discloses wherein the first error, the second error, and the third error are calculated in the predetermined cycles (see at least Fig. 3, [0048]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onomura in view of Iimura, Yang, and Takano (JP 2020-165945 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 9/11/2025 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 5, Onomura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first error and the second error are errors in a width direction of the vehicle.
Takano, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the first error and the second error are errors in a width direction of the vehicle (see at least [0017-0018] - based on the output results of the detection unit 40, an estimated result is output for each detection unit 40 for the error contained in the longitudinal position of the vehicle (first error), the error contained in the lateral position of the vehicle (second error), and the error contained in the angle indicating the direction toward the target (third error)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Takano into the invention of Onomura with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of accurately estimating the position and orientation of the vehicle by estimating longitudinal error, lateral error, and an angular error (Takano – [0007, 0017-0018]). Furthermore, autonomous vehicles need to account for lateral and longitudinal positioning and deviations for accurate and safe control, and therefore determining the errors in the lateral direction of the vehicle would be necessary for safe operation and doing so would yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, claim limitations no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669