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 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. In the Instant Application, the terms being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are “reliability calculation unit,” “traveling road estimation unit,” “reliability update unit,” and “position estimation device.”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If the Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 functions); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7-10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 1 discloses “[a] reliability calculation unit configured to calculate a road reliability indicating whether the position estimation target vehicle exists for at least one road that has been adjusted on the PD map.” The Examiner could not ascertain whether the “road reliability” relates to a plurality of roads, or only the road related to the “position estimation target vehicle.” The Examiner is also unsure what the word “exists” means in the context of this limitation, and is interpreting it to mean that the vehicle is currently located on the adjusted road.
Claim 1 also discloses “[a] traveling road estimation unit configured to estimate a road on which the position estimation target vehicle is traveling, in consideration of a road that has not been adjusted on the PD map.” The Examiner could not ascertain what “in consideration” means in the context of this limitation, and is interpreting it to mean that the estimation unit makes a determination whether the road that the vehicle is on has been updated.
Claims 13, 14 have the same issues as those described for Claim 1.
Claim 7 discloses “[t]he traveling road estimation unit estimates that the position estimation target vehicle is traveling on a specific road that has been adjusted on the PD map when the road reliability of the specific road is higher than the road reliability of a different road.” The Examiner believes the “different road” limitation should be further clarified to give meaning to the claim. In its current form, this limitation seems to be satisfied if there is any road, anywhere on earth, that has a lower reliability than “the specific road.” This limitation would automatically be met any time the specific road does not have the highest reliability out of every road that exists.
Claim 8 discloses “[t]he traveling road estimation unit estimates that the position estimation target vehicle is traveling on a road that has not been adjusted on the PD map when the road reliability of all roads that are set to a calculation target of the road reliability and have been adjusted is lower than a preset threshold.” The Examiner could not ascertain whether this limitation is intended to compare a plurality of reliabilities to a preset threshold, or whether a single reliability relates to “all roads that are set to a calculation target of the road reliability.” The Examiner also could not ascertain what “set to a calculation target of the road reliability” means.
Claims 9, 10 also contain the “calculation target” term.
These claims should be amended to more clearly convey the meanings of these limitations, consistent with the Specification.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (U.S. Patent 9,709,402 B1) in view of Kanematsu (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0114975 A1), in further view of Stenneth (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0125433 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Davidson teaches a position estimation device for estimating a position of a position estimation target vehicle by using a prove data (PD) map generated by collecting probe data (see Column 2 lines 13-25, Column 6 lines 27-41, Column 12 lines 20-28 teaching a map data accuracy determination system that determines the location of a vehicle based on map data and vehicle telematics data collected by vehicle sensors).
Davidson fails to teach a reliability calculation unit configured to calculate a road reliability indicating whether the position estimation target vehicle exists for at least one road that has been adjusted on the PD map; and
A traveling road estimation unit configured to estimate a road on which the position estimation target vehicle is traveling, in consideration of a road that has not been adjusted on the PD map.
However, Kanematsu teaches a reliability calculation unit configured to calculate a road reliability indicating whether the position estimation target vehicle exists for at least one road that has been adjusted on the PD map (see Paragraph 59 lines 1-5, Paragraph 70 lines 1-7 teaching a road information processing system that determines whether a specific road has already been registered to a database for an updated version of a map, and wherein the map shows the surroundings of a subject vehicle); and
A traveling road estimation unit configured to estimate a road on which the position estimation target vehicle is traveling, in consideration of a road that has not been adjusted on the PD map (see Paragraph 59 lines 1-5, Paragraph 70 lines 1-7 teaching that the system determines whether a specific road has already been registered to a database for an updated version of a map, and wherein the map shows the surroundings near a subject vehicle, including a road section).
Davidson and Kanematsu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that determine map accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidson’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system determines a road section close to the subject vehicle, and then determines whether that section has been updated in a map as taught by Kanematsu. Doing so could increase the accuracy of a navigation system by enabling it to determine how relevant or stale particular sections of a navigation map are.
Davidson further fails to teach collecting probe data from a plurality of vehicles; and
Wherein the road estimate is based on a calculation result of the road reliability.
However, Stenneth teaches collecting probe data from a plurality of vehicles (see Paragraph 105 lines 16-21 teaching a road confidence determination system that uses probe data that is crowdsourced from multiple vehicles); and
Wherein the road estimate is based on a calculation result of the road reliability (see Claim 1 teaching that the system determines a map-enabled driving scenario for a road segment based on confidence scores for features of the road segment).
Davidson and Stenneth are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that determine the confidence or accuracy of roads on maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidson’s invention to incorporate a feature that could estimate an output relating to a road based on a confidence or accuracy of parts or features of the road as taught by Stenneth. Doing so could increase the accuracy of a navigation system by enabling it to determine how accurate or reliable particular sections of a navigation map are.
In regard to Claim 2, Davidson further teaches wherein the reliability calculation unit is configured to calculate the road reliability by comparing information obtained from at least one type of sensing information from an autonomous sensor mounted on the position estimation target vehicle, a state of the position estimation target vehicle, or positioning information received from a satellite positioning system with information of the PD map (see Column 2 lines 13-25, Column 6 lines 27-41, Column 12 lines 20-28, teaching that map accuracy is determined by finding the difference between the map data and the telematics data).
In regard to Claim 3, Davidson fails to teach wherein the reliability calculation unit is configured to:
Calculate a reliability based on a plurality of mutually different features; and
Calculate a road reliability as an overall reliability based on the reliability based on each of the plurality of mutually different features.
However, Stenneth teaches wherein the reliability calculation unit is configured to (see Claim 9 teaching that a processor conducts the method):
Calculate a reliability based on a plurality of mutually different features (see Claim 9 teaching that the system calculates a confidence score for a road segment based on different characteristics or features ); and
Calculate a road reliability as an overall reliability based on the reliability based on each of the plurality of mutually different features (see Claim 9 teaching that the road segment is assigned an aggregate score based on a plurality of interval confidence scores).
Davidson and Stenneth are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that determine the confidence or accuracy of roads on maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidson’s invention to incorporate a feature that could estimate an output a total confidence or reliability for a road based on a confidence or accuracy of parts or features of the road as taught by Stenneth. Doing so could increase the accuracy of a navigation system by enabling it to determine how accurate or reliable particular sections or features of a navigation map are.
In regard to Claim 13, Davidson further teaches a position estimation method executed by at least one processor (see Column 1 lines 64-66 teaching that the method utilizes a processor).
The rest of Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 14, Davidson further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a position estimation program (see Column 1 lines 64-66 teaching that the method utilizes a memory).
The rest of Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights