CTNF 18/798,292 CTNF 99212 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-25 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on April 26, 2024 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0055887 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa; Shinya et al. (US 20220012509 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Tagawa) in view of Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) . Regarding independent claim 1, Tagawa teaches: A processor-implemented method, the method comprising: selecting a first reference landmark from among a first plurality of candidate landmarks related to a parking area of a vehicle in a first frame image corresponding to a first timepoint (See ¶ 43, 69, 70, 56, 61 Figure 2, 3, wherein a processor ‘150’ is used to select a first reference landmark, landmark ‘1352’ as seen in figure 2, from among a first plurality of candidate landmarks (local surrounding information ‘121’) related to a parking area of a vehicle (parking frame) in a first frame image corresponding to a first timepoint (image data captured via a camera, camera ‘25’ in figure 3, at a first timepoint)) determining positioning information of the vehicle by using geometric relationship information of the selected first reference landmark with respect to the vehicle (See ¶ 61 – 66, 68, Figure 2, wherein the point cloud map data comprising landmark (first reference landmark) position/coordinates (geometric relationship information) is used to determine the position of the vehicle with respect to the point cloud map data). Tagawa does not explicitly disclose selecting a second reference landmark from among a plurality of candidate landmarks in a second frame image corresponding to a second timepoint, the second timepoint being temporally subsequent to the first timepoint, and updating the positioning information of using the geometric relationship information of the selected second reference landmark with respect to the vehicle. However, Yang teaches of selecting a second reference landmark from among a second plurality of candidate landmarks in a second frame image corresponding to a second timepoint, the second timepoint being temporally subsequent to the first timepoint (See ¶ 24, 26 – 28, Figures 1A – 2B wherein a plurality of landmarks (including second landmark ‘133’ in figure 1B) are captured from a plurality of candidate landmarks (surrounding area sensor image data captured by sensors, cameras ‘106’ in figure 1A) temporally subsequent to the first timepoint (continuous capture at different timestamps)) and updating the positioning information using the geometric relationship information of the selected second reference landmark with respect to the vehicle. (See ¶ 27 wherein the geometric information (positions of landmarks including second landmark) are used to continuously update the position of the vehicle with respect to the landmarks). As taught by Yang selecting a second reference landmark from among a plurality of candidate landmarks in a second frame image corresponding to a second timepoint, the second timepoint being temporally subsequent to the first timepoint, and updating the positioning information of using the geometric relationship information of the selected second reference landmark with respect to the vehicle is part of a process that allows for additional context to be provided for a SLAM algorithm making it easier to validate and analyze the outputs of SLAM. (See ¶ 1 and 2 wherein additional context regarding the computations of a SLAM algorithm are provided allowing for an easier way to analyze and validate the outputs of SLAM ). As both the teachings of Tagawa and Yang deal with the technical field of image processing regarding determining the positions of a vehicle using landmarks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tagawa with Yang to teach of selecting a second reference landmark from among a plurality of candidate landmarks in a second frame image corresponding to a second timepoint, the second timepoint being temporally subsequent to the first timepoint, and updating the positioning information of using the geometric relationship information of the selected second reference landmark with respect to the vehicle in order for SLAM computations to be given more context making it easier to validate and analyze the SLAM output. Regarding dependent claim 2, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: Determining the positioning information of the vehicle comprises determining the parking area of the vehicle (See Tagawa ¶ 56, 59, 61 – 66, 68 wherein the positioning information of the vehicle is based on the point cloud map comprising the determination of the parking area (parking frame) of the vehicle) each of the first frame image and the second frame image comprises an area corresponding to a portion of the determined parking area (See Tagawa ¶ 95, 138, 56, 59 wherein multiple images including the first and second frame images are captured at subsequent time intervales comprising an area corresponding to the determined parking area) the selecting the first reference landmark comprises: detecting the plurality of candidate landmarks based on the determined parking area; and calculating scores of the detected plurality of candidate landmarks. (See Tagawa ¶ 75 and 76 wherein a plurality of candidates for the parking frame (candidate landmarks) are given a score (detected range) and when the candidates for a parking frame are within a preset range that candidate is selected as the first reference landmark (parking frame)). Regarding dependent claim 7, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: Selecting the first reference landmark comprises selecting first vertices of the parking area in the first frame image as the first reference landmark (See Tagawa ¶ 63, 167, 56 Fig 2, wherein the vertices of the parking area are detected as a landmark (reference landmark) from image data (first frame image) from a camera) selecting the second reference landmark comprises selecting second vertices of the parking area in the second frame image and second edges of the parking area in the second frame image as the second reference landmark. (See Tagawa ¶ 63, 72 - 76, 59, 138, 167, 56 Fig 2 wherein a plurality of images (including the second frame image) are taken at subsequent timepoints of the parking area wherein edges and vertices are extracted as landmark characteristics (second reference landmark)). Regarding dependent claim 9, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: Selecting the first reference landmark comprises selecting first edges of the parking area in the first frame image as the first reference landmark (See Tagawa ¶ 75 wherein the edges of the parking area are extracted as landmarks (first reference landmark), being extracted from images (first frame image)) the selecting the second reference landmark comprises selecting second edges of the parking area in the second frame image and an object in or around the parking area in the second frame image as the second reference landmark. (See Tagawa ¶ 75, 72, 56, 59, 138 wherein a series of images are captured (including a second frame image) wherein the second reference landmark comprises extracted parking area edges and objects around the parking area such as obstacles like pillars). Regarding dependent claim 11, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: Updating the positioning information of the vehicle based on a difference between comparison geometric relationship information and the geometric relationship information of the second reference landmark. (See Yang ¶ 27, Figure 2A and 2B wherein the updating of the position of the vehicle is based on changing geometric relationship information being the relative distance information between the vehicle and the landmarks including the second reference landmark). Regarding dependent claim 12, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: Acquiring the comparison geometric relationship information by transforming the determined positioning information by using inertial data acquired from an inertial sensor. (See Yang ¶ 24, 27, 25 wherein the comparison geometric relationship data is acquired using transformation of the determined positioning information captured via an inertial sensor (inertial measurement unit IMU)). Regarding dependent claim 14, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: Determining whether to select a candidate landmark as the second reference landmark, based on a result of comparing a score of each candidate landmark with a threshold score set for the candidate landmark (See Tagawa ¶ 75 – 77 wherein all candidate landmarks (extracted edges) are given a score (distance range) and then compared to a preset range (threshold score) and if the range is within the preset range then the detected pair is set as a candidate landmark for the parking frame (second reference landmark)) updating the positioning information of the vehicle by using the geometric relationship information of the second reference landmark comprises skipping the updating of the positioning information based on the second frame image responsive to not all of the plurality of candidate landmarks being selected as the second reference landmark. (See Tagawa ¶ 75 – 81 wherein the updating of the position of the vehicle is based on the point cloud data indicating the landmark (second reference landmark) and thus the updating the position of the vehicle is skipped if the point cloud data representing the landmark has not been set yet). Regarding dependent claim 26, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1. (See Tagawa ¶ 52 - 54, Figure 1,wherein a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (ROM memory, ‘101’ in figure 1) stores instructions executed by a processor, ‘150’ in figure 1, to perform the method of claim 1, Please see the discussion of claim 1 above for further explanation) Regarding independent claim 27, claim 27 is a device claim corresponding to claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Tagawa teaches of a device, comprising processors configured to execute instructions and a memory for storing the instructions. (See Tagawa ¶52 – 54 and Figure 1, wherein an automatic parking device ‘100’ in figure 1, is disclosed that comprises processors ‘150’ in figure 1 that execute instructions stored in memory (ROM memory, ‘101’ in figure 1). Please see the discussion of claim 1 above for further explanation) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa; Shinya et al. (US 20220012509 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Tagawa) in view of Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) further in view of Kang; Kyunghyun et al. (US 20160275360 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Kang) . Regarding dependent claim 3, Tagawa in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose: Determining the parking area from among areas occupiable by the vehicle within a space around the vehicle based on occupancy information of the space around the vehicle and volume information of the vehicle. However, Kang teaches of determining the parking area from among areas occupiable by the vehicle within a space around the vehicle based on occupancy information of the space around the vehicle and volume information of the vehicle. (See ¶ 83 – 86, 70, figures 6 – 8 wherein the external device ‘200’ in figure 7 provides parking area information (parking information) from among areas occupiable by the vehicle ‘100’ in figure 7, within a space around the vehicle based on occupancy information (available spaces for parking, M1 in figure 8) and volume information (size information) of the vehicle). As taught by Kang determining parking area based on occupancy information of the space around the vehicle and volume information of the vehicle allows for available parking spaces and non-available parking spaces to be determined. (See ¶ 87, Figure 10 wherein available parking spaces for the vehicle, M1 in figure 10, are displayed/determined and unavailable parking spaces, M2 in figure 10, are displayed/determined). As both the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang and Kang deal with the technical field of image processing regarding parking areas for a 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 the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang with Kang to teach of determining the parking area from among areas occupiable by the vehicle within a space around the vehicle based on occupancy information of the space around the vehicle and volume information of the vehicle in order for unavailable and available parking spaces to be determined for the vehicle to park . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa; Shinya et al. (US 20220012509 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Tagawa) in view of Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) further in view of Zhang; Shao et al. (CN 117804432 A; Translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Zhang) Regarding dependent claim 4, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: Detecting the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises detecting vertices of the parking area as candidate landmarks (See Tagawa ¶ 63, 167 Fig 2, wherein the vertices of the parking area are detected in the process of determining the plurality of candidate landmarks). Tagawa in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose, wherein the calculating the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises calculating scores of the vertices based on a distance difference between a reference distance between reference vertices at a reference timepoint and a distance between first vertices at the first timepoint. However, Zhang teaches of the calculating the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises calculating scores of the vertices based on a distance difference between a reference distance between reference vertices at a reference timepoint and a distance between first vertices at the first timepoint. (See ¶ 64 wherein the distance difference between vertices of the acquired parking space edge vector (first vertices first vertices at first timepoint) and matching vertices of parking space map (reference vertices) is calculated wherein the scores are the output of the loss function that depends on the distance difference). As taught by Zhang calculating the distance difference between the vertices of the reference vertices and the first vertices allows for pose correction of the vehicle to be determined based on the calculation. (See ¶ 64 wherein the pose of the vehicle is adjusted based on the loss function output between the reference (map) vertices and the acquired vertices (first vertices) acquired at differing timepoints ). As both the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang and Zhang deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the position of a vehicle and parking spaces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang with Zhang to teach of the calculating the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises calculating scores of the vertices based on a distance difference between a reference distance between reference vertices at a reference timepoint and a distance between first vertices at the first timepoint in order to allow for the pose of the vehicle is adjusted based on the loss function output between the reference (map) vertices and the acquired vertices (first vertices) acquired at differing timepoints . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa; Shinya et al. (US 20220012509 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Tagawa) in view of Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) further in view of Kaneko; Takayuki et al. (US 20210271903 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Kaneko) . Regarding dependent claim 5, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: Detecting the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises detecting edges of the parking area as candidate landmarks (See Tagawa ¶ 75 wherein the edges of the parking area are detected in the process of determining the plurality of candidate landmarks). Tagawa in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose calculating the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises calculating scores of the edges based on angles of first edges in the first frame image. However, Kaneko teaches of calculating the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises calculating scores of the edges based on angles of first edges in the first frame image. (See ¶ 79, 45, wherein a calculation is made comprising calculating a score (determine a range of degrees) of the edges based on angles (relative angle) of the edges in the captured images, including the first frame image). As taught by Kaneko the calculation of the scores of the edges based on the angles of the edges allows for a determination on what type of parking frame is being determined, such as the “angle parking frame”. (See ¶ 79 wherein the “angle parking frame” is determined to be the “angle parking frame” based on the determination that the angles of the edges fall within a predefined range). As both the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the parking spaces for a 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 the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang with Kaneko to teach of calculating the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises calculating scores of the edges based on angles of first edges in the first frame image in order for the type of parking space to be assess such as the determination of the “angle parking frame” based on the angle calculations . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa; Shinya et al. (US 20220012509 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Tagawa) in view of Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) further in view of Kim; Kyoung et al. (US 20230249705 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Kim) . Regarding dependent claim 6, Tagawa in view of Yang teaches: Detecting the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises detecting an object in or around the parking area as a candidate landmark (See ¶ 56 wherein detecting the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises detecting an object such as a pillar or walls around the parking area as a candidate landmark). Tagawa in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose calculating the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises calculating a score of the object based on an angle of the vehicle to the parking area in the first frame image. However, Kim teaches of calculating the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises calculating a score of the object based on an angle of the vehicle to the parking area in the first frame image. (See ¶ 111 - 114 and 111 wherein a calculation is done for calculating a score (angle) based on the angle between the vehicle and the parking area/line in a conversion image (first frame image)). As taught by Kim calculating the angle of the vehicle to the parking area in an image allows for a determination on whether the vehicle has entered the parking area or not (See ¶ 114 wherein a determination is made on whether the vehicle has entered the parking area yet based on the angles of the vehicle to the parking area). As both the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang and Kim deal with the technical field of image processing regarding vehicle positions and parking areas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang with Kim to teach of calculating the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks comprises calculating a score of the object based on an angle of the vehicle to the parking area in the first frame image in order for a determination to be made on whether the vehicle has entered the parking area yet based on the angles of the vehicle to the parking area . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa; Shinya et al. (US 20220012509 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Tagawa) in view of Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) further in view of Kanno; T et al. (US 20210114585 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Kanno) . Regarding dependent claim 13 Tagawa in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose: Acquiring the comparison geometric relationship information by using a map indicating positions of the plurality of candidate landmarks. However Kanno teaches of acquiring the comparison geometric relationship information by using a map indicating positions of the plurality of candidate landmarks. (See ¶ 80, 81, 33 wherein the acquiring of the comparison geometric relationship information is done by the use of a parking place map ‘5’, containing the plurality of landmarks locations). As taught by Kanno the use of a map for indicating positions of the plurality of candidate landmarks allows for the relative position of the vehicle to be determined in relation to the landmarks. (See ¶ 81 wherein the relative position of the vehicle is determined by the use of the information provided in the map such as the landmark locations). As both the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang and Kanno deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the position of vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tagawa in view of Yang with Kanno to teach of acquiring the comparison geometric relationship information by using a map indicating positions of the plurality of candidate landmarks in order for the relative position of the vehicle to be determined in relation to the landmarks provided by the map information . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15, 16, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) in view of Lee; Jaehong et al. (US 20240255290 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Lee) . Regarding independent claim 15 Yang teaches: A processor-implemented method, the method comprising: determining positioning information of a vehicle by using first sensing data acquired from a first sensor (See ¶ 24 – 27 wherein a processor is used to implement a method for determining the positions of a vehicle (position and attitude of vehicle) using first sensing data acquired from a first sensor, being the one or more sensors such as Lidar, GPS, Inertial measurement unit (IMU), and cameras) determining first geometric relationship information of a landmark from the first sensing data (See ¶ 27 and figures 2A and 2B wherein first geometric relationship information of a landmark is determined, being the distance relationships between the landmark point cloud data and the vehicle from the first sensing data being the GPS data) and second geometric relationship information of the landmark from second sensing data based on a score of the landmark in the second sensing data acquired from a second sensor (See ¶ 27, 26 wherein second geometric relationship information of the landmark (being the sensor data from the IMU used to provide point cloud landmark information to help determine position of the vehicle) is determined from second sensing data being the IMU data, wherein the IMU data is given a confidence level (score)). Yang does not explicitly disclose adjusting the positioning information by using a difference between the determined first geometric relationship information and second geometric relationship information However, Lee teaches of adjusting the positioning information by using a difference between the determined first geometric relationship information and second geometric relationship information. (See ¶ 55 – 57 wherein the position information of the vehicle is adjusted using a difference between the determined first geometric relationship information (position information from the IMU) and the second geometric information (position information from the camera)). As taught by Lee, the adjusting of the positioning information by using a difference between the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information allows for a ground part to be executed wherein a point of the 3D coordinate system of a ground area can be adjusted. (See ¶ 58 wherein a ground area is adjusted based on the determination of the change in vehicle position made using the difference between the first and second geometric relationship information). As both the teachings of Yang and Lee deal with the technical field of image processing regarding vehicle positions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang with Lee to teach of adjusting the positioning information by using a difference between the determined first geometric relationship information and second geometric relationship information in order to allow for a ground correction part to be executed. Regarding dependent claim 16 Yang in view of Lee teaches: The first sensor comprises an inertial sensor, wherein the first sensing data comprises variance information of the positioning information of the vehicle (See Yang ¶ 27 and 28 wherein the first sensor is an IMU (inertial sensor) wherein the first sensing data comprises variance information (sensing data at different times) of the positioning of the vehicle) the determining the positioning information of the vehicle by using the first sensing data comprises transforming the positioning information of the vehicle by using the variance information in response to the first sensing data being acquired to update the position information. (See Yang ¶ 28, 27 wherein the first sensing data is transformed (fused with GPS data) and used alongside the variance information (IMU sensor data from different timestamps) to update the position information of the vehicle). Regarding independent claim 28, claim 28 is a device claim corresponding to claim 15. Please see the discussion of claim 15 above. Furthermore, Yang teaches of a device, comprising processors configured to execute instructions and a memory for storing the instructions. (See Yang ¶ 25, 12 and 13, Figure 1B, wherein an apparatus (device) is disclosed that comprises processors (computing system ‘121’ in figure 1B) that execute instructions stored in memory. Please see the discussion of claim 15 above for further explanation) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) in view of Lee; Jaehong et al. (US 20240255290 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Lee) further in view of Tagawa; Shinya et al. (US 20220012509 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Tagawa) . Regarding dependent claim 17 Yang in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose: The second sensor comprises a vision sensor and wherein the determining the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information comprises: acquiring an image based on the second sensing data; detecting the landmark from the image; calculating a score of the landmark detected from the image; and determining the second geometric relationship information based on the score. However, Tagawa teaches of the second sensor comprises a vision sensor and wherein the determining the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information comprises: acquiring an image based on the second sensing data; detecting the landmark from the image; calculating a score of the landmark detected from the image; and determining the second geometric relationship information based on the score. (See ¶ 72 - 81 wherein the second sensor data comprises a vision sensor (camera) wherein the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information is based on image data wherein the landmark (edges) is detected in the image and a score (range value) is given to the landmark that determines the second geometric relationship information (relative distance from landmark to vehicle) based on the score (range values of edges being accepted as a usable landmark)). As taught by Tagawa the determination of the second geometric relationship information based on the score allows for the determination of whether or not the landmark data can be used as parking lot data. (See ¶ 80 wherein the point cloud landmark data undergoes a determination to see if the data can be used as parking lot data). As both the teachings of Yang in view of Lee and Tagawa deal with the technical field of image processing regarding positions of vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang in view of Lee with Tagawa to teach of second sensor comprises a vision sensor and wherein the determining the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information comprises: acquiring an image based on the second sensing data; detecting the landmark from the image; calculating a score of the landmark detected from the image; and determining the second geometric relationship information based on the score in order for a determination to be made on whether the processed information can be used as parking lot data. Regarding dependent claim 18 Yang in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose: Adjusting the positioning information responsive to the score being less than a threshold score; and skipping the adjusting of the positioning information based on the second geometric relationship information responsive to the score being greater than or equal to the threshold score. However, Tagawa teaches of adjusting the positioning information responsive to the score being less than a threshold score; and skipping the adjusting of the positioning information based on the second geometric relationship information responsive to the score being greater than or equal to the threshold score. (See ¶ 75 – 81 wherein the updating of the position of the vehicle is based on the extracted edge (landmark) range (score) being within a preset range (less than a threshold score) and if the range is not within the preset range (equal to or greater than threshold score) than the landmark is not set and the position is not updated). As taught by Tagawa the adjusting or not adjusting of the position information of the vehicle based on the second geometric relationship information based on the comparison of the score to a threshold allows for the determination of whether or not the landmark data can be used as parking lot data. (See ¶ 80 wherein the point cloud landmark data undergoes a determination to see if the data can be used as parking lot data after ). As both the teachings of Yang in view of Lee and Tagawa deal with the technical field of image processing regarding positions of vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang in view of Lee with Tagawa to teach of adjusting the positioning information responsive to the score being less than a threshold score; and skipping the adjusting of the positioning information based on the second geometric relationship information responsive to the score being greater than or equal to the threshold score in order for a determination to be made on whether the processed information can be used as parking lot data . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) in view of Lee; Jaehong et al. (US 20240255290 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Lee) further in view of Tagawa; Shinya et al. (US 20220012509 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Tagawa) and further in view of Matsuhana; Ryosuke (US 20210233404 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Matsuhana) . Regarding dependent claim 20 Yang in view of Lee teaches: Determining the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information (See Yang ¶ 27 wherein the first and second geometric relationship information are determined being the relative distance from the landmarks to vehicle at different time points.) Yang in view of Lee does not teach of determining the positioning information of the vehicle further comprises determining a parking area for the vehicle and detecting the landmark based on the determined parking area However Tagawa teaches of determining the positioning information of the vehicle further comprises determining a parking area for the vehicle (See Tagawa ¶ 56 wherein the position of the vehicle further comprises determining a parking area (parking frame) for the vehicle) As taught by Tagawa the determining the positioning information of the vehicle further comprises determining a parking area for the vehicle allows for the updating of the coordinate system that contains coordinates for the moving vehicle and landmarks. (See ¶ 56 wherein the coordinate system can be updated based on the parking frame being determined in order to update the vehicle position and landmark locations). As both the teachings of Yang in view of Lee and Tagawa deal with the technical field of image processing regarding positions of vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang in view of Lee with Tagawa to teach of the determining the positioning information of the vehicle further comprises determining a parking area for the vehicle in order to allow for the updating of the coordinate system that contains coordinates for the moving vehicle and landmarks. Yang in view of Lee and Tagawa does not explicitly disclose detecting the landmark based on the determined parking area. However Matsuhana teaches of detecting the landmark based on the determined parking area. (See ¶ 41, figure 1 wherein the landmark (markers ‘14’ in figure 1) are determined/placed depending on the parking spaces (‘18’ in figure 1)). As taught by Matsuhana the determination of the landmarks based on the parking area allows for a route for the vehicle to be determined that leads the vehicle to a selected parking space, (See ¶ 42 and figure 1 wherein an automatic path is created for the vehicle in accordance to the landmarks created around the parking areas to lead the vehicle to the selected parking space). As both the teachings of Yang in view of Lee and Tagawa and Matsuhana deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the positions of vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang in view of Lee and Tagawa with Matsuhana to teach of detecting the landmark based on the determined parking area in order for an automatic path to be created that leads the vehicle to the selected parking space . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) in view of Lee; Jaehong et al. (US 20240255290 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Lee) further in view of Tagawa; Shinya et al. (US 20220012509 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Tagawa) and further in view of Matsuhana; Ryosuke (US 20210233404 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Matsuhana) and further in view of Kang; Kyunghyun et al. (US 20160275360 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Kang) . Regarding dependent claim 21, Yang in view of Lee, Tagawa and Matsuhana does not explicitly disclose: Determining the parking area from among areas occupiable by the vehicle within a space around the vehicle based on occupancy information of the space around the vehicle and volume information of the vehicle. However, Kang teaches of determining the parking area from among areas occupiable by the vehicle within a space around the vehicle based on occupancy information of the space around the vehicle and volume information of the vehicle. (See ¶ 83 – 86, 70, figures 6 – 8 wherein the external device ‘200’ in figure 7 provides parking area information (parking information) from among areas occupiable by the vehicle ‘100’ in figure 7, within a space around the vehicle based on occupancy information (available spaces for parking, M1 in figure 8) and volume information (size information) of the vehicle). As taught by Kang determining parking area based on occupancy information of the space around the vehicle and volume information of the vehicle allows for available parking spaces and non-available parking spaces to be determined. (See ¶ 87, Figure 10 wherein available parking spaces for the vehicle, M1 in figure 10, are displayed/determined and unavailable parking spaces, M2 in figure 10, are displayed/determined). As both the teachings of Yang in view of Lee, Tagawa, and Matsuhana and Kang deal with the technical field of image processing regarding parking areas for a 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 the teachings of Yang in view of Lee, Tagawa, and Matsuhana with Kang to teach of determining the parking area from among areas occupiable by the vehicle within a space around the vehicle based on occupancy information of the space around the vehicle and volume information of the vehicle in order for unavailable and available parking spaces to be determined for the vehicle to park . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang; Mengda et al. (US 20220300745 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Yang) in view of Lee; Jaehong et al. (US 20240255290 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Lee) further in view of Kanno; T et al. (US 20210114585 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Kanno) . Regarding dependent claim 25 Yang in view of Lee teaches: Determining the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information (See Yang ¶ 27 wherein the first and second geometric relationship information is the relative distance calculated from the vehicle to the landmarks). Yang in view of Lee does not explicitly teach of acquiring the first geometric relationship information by using a map indicating a position of the landmark. However Kanno teaches of acquiring the first geometric relationship information by using a map indicating a position of the landmark. (See ¶ 80, 81, 33 wherein the acquiring of the first geometric relationship information is done by the use of a parking place map ‘5’, containing a plurality of landmark locations). As taught by Kanno the use of a map for indicating positions of the plurality of candidate landmarks allows for the relative position of the vehicle to be determined in relation to the landmarks. (See ¶ 81 wherein the relative position of the vehicle is determined by the use of the information provided in the map such as the landmark locations). As both the teachings of Yang in view of Lee and Kanno deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the position of vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang in view of Lee with Kanno to teach of acquiring the first geometric relationship information by using a map indicating a position of the landmark in order for the relative position of the vehicle to be determined in relation to the landmarks provided by the map information. Prior Art Made of Record 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is as follows: U.S. Patent Application No. US 20220178702 A1 (Liu) discloses the use landmark information for a parking lot that is received by a vehicle and used to determine the position of the vehicle relative to the landmark information received regarding the parking lot. [Liu 0021] Furthermore Please See attached form PTO-892 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 8, 10, 19, 22 – 24 are 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. 13-03-01 The following is a statement of reasons for the indications of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 8, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claims 7, further comprising wherein the calculating the positioning information of the vehicle further comprises: excluding vertices of the parking area in a third frame image from a third reference landmark, based on acquiring the third frame image corresponding to a third timepoint temporally subsequent to the second timepoint. Regarding claim 10, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claim 9, further comprising wherein the calculating the positioning information of the vehicle further comprises: excluding third edges of the parking area in a third frame image from a third reference landmark, based on acquiring the third frame image corresponding to a third timepoint temporally subsequent to the second timepoint. Regarding claim 19, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach of reasonably suggest the limitations of claim 15 further comprising wherein the landmark comprises a plurality of candidate landmarks, and wherein the determining the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information comprises: calculating scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks in the second sensing data; and determining a reference landmark among the plurality of candidate landmarks, based on the scores of the plurality of candidate landmarks, and wherein the adjusting the positioning information comprises adjusting the positioning information based on a difference between first geometric relationship information and second geometric relationship information corresponding to each reference landmark. Regarding claim 22, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claim 20 further comprising wherein the detecting the landmark comprises detecting vertices of the parking area as the landmark, and wherein the determining the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information comprises: calculating scores of the vertices based on a distance difference between a distance between the vertices in reference geometric relationship information acquired at a reference timepoint and a distance between the vertices in the second sensing data; determining a position of each vertex in the first sensing data as the first geometric relationship information responsive to the scores of the vertices being less than a vertex threshold score; and determining a position of each vertex in the second sensing data as the second geometric relationship information responsive to the scores of the vertices being less than the vertex threshold score. Regarding claim 23, the reasons of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claim 20 further comprising wherein the detecting the landmark comprises detecting edges of the parking area as the landmark, and wherein the determining the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information comprises: calculating scores of the edges based on angles of the edges in the second sensing data; determining relative positions of the edges to the vehicle in the first sensing data and the angles of the edges to the vehicle as the first geometric relationship information responsive to the scores of the edges being less than an edge threshold score; and determining relative positions of the edges to the vehicle in the second sensing data and the angles of the edges to the vehicle as the second geometric relationship information responsive to the scores of the edges being less than the edge threshold score. Regarding claim 24, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claim 20 further comprising wherein the detecting the landmark comprises detecting an object in or around the parking area as the landmark, and wherein the determining the first geometric relationship information and the second geometric relationship information comprises: calculating a score of the object based on an angle of the vehicle to the parking area in the second sensing data; determining a distance from the vehicle to the object in the first sensing data as the first geometric relationship information responsive to the score of the object being less than an object threshold score; and determining a distance from the vehicle to the object in the second sensing data as the second geometric relationship information responsive to the score of the object being less than the object threshold score. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET. 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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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. /ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2661 /JOHN VILLECCO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 2 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 3 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 4 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 5 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 6 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 7 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 8 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 9 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 10 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 11 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 12 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 13 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 14 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 15 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 16 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 17 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 18 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 19 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 21 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 23 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 24 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 25 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 26 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 27 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 28 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 29 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 30 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 31 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 32 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/798,292 Page 33 Art Unit: 2661
Prosecution Insights