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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 6/12/2026.
2. This is a Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-14,1 7-21 are currently pending; claims 1-14, 17-19 are amended, claims 20-21 are new; they are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
4. Applicant claims a DE application with priority date back to 8/08/2022, this date is considered.
Response
5. The examiner withdraws drawings’ objection, 35 USC 101, and 112 rejections ; however, a prior art of Reid still reads on the claimed language of “position-dependent maximum permissible errors and orientation-dependent maximum permissible errors” with Reid’s suggestion for position-dependent, and orientation-dependent errors (see Reid, Figs.15 and pg. 10 col. I, 2nd para. – a vehicle’s pose: a vehicle’s direction). Reid’s Fig. 7 suggests about using different sensors to identify a vehicle’s pose.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
351
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1-5, 9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid’s “Localization Requirement for Autonomous Vehicles” – hereafter “Reid’s NPL.
A. Per claim 1: Reid’s NPL teaches a method for processing vehicle pose information (see Reid’s NPL page 3 a drawing for “Geometry Bounds” in Fig. 4) in an at least partially automated vehicle (i.e., “autonomous vehicle” see Reid’s NPL page 3 col. I, 2nd para) , a driving assistance system of the vehicle (see Reid’s NPL page 2 col. I, last paragraph) comprising features:
- determining, based at least in part on measurement data gathered by at least one sensor that is carried by the vehicle (see Reid’s NPL page 3 col. I, 3rd paragraph) as well as maximum expected errors of at least the pose (e.g., “At any given time, the vehicle will have an estimate of its maximum position error in each direction. These are known as protection levels and are depicted in Figure 1”see Reid’s NPL page 1 , col. I, 4th para.);
- querying, based at least in part on the position comprised in the determined pose an alert limit service for position-dependent, (e.g., consulting with another source to check if “within an acceptable range/requirement”, see Reid’s NPL page 7 , col. I, TABLE II.);
dependent, maximum permissible errors (e.g., “Longitudinal, lateral, and vertical localization error bounds (alert limits)” see Reid’s NPL the abstract, pg. 1 col. I, 4th para.);
- determining whether the maximum expected errors are within the maximum permissible errors ( e.g., using Reid’s NPL page 7 , col. I, TABLE II.for comparisons); and if/when the maximum expected errors exceed the maximum permissible errors ,
initiating at least one remedial action (e.g., switching to “a manual mode” to control that vehicle if/when an expected value is exceeding a requirement of Table II when using Reid’s NPL page 7 , col. I, TABLE II.for comparisons).
Applicant amends claims to read “position-dependent ...permissible errors and orientation-dependent ... permissible errors”; however Reid recognized these permissible errors with suggestion for position-dependent, and orientation-dependent errors (see Reid, Figs.15 and pg. 10 col. I, 2nd para. – a vehicle’s pose: a vehicle’s direction). Reid’s Fig. 7 suggests about using different sensors to identify a vehicle’s pose.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
351
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reid’s NPL does not expressly disclose about claimed terms “maximum permissible error” and “maximum expected errors”; however, similar meanings are used such as “maximum allowable protection levels in each direction” and “the vehicle will have an estimate of its maximum position error in each direction” )” see Reid’s NPL, pg. 1 col. I, 4th para.):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Reid’s NPL with equivalent expressions for “maximum permissible error” and “maximum expected errors” to ensure a safe operation are initiated if/when exceeding an alert limit.
B. Per claims 17-19: Claims 17-19 are implemented structures from a method of claim 1 into a non-transitory computer readable medium, these claims require of using a computer having a non-transitory computer readable medium containing similar limitations as in claim 1 (see Reid’s NPL page 6 Fig. 10); therefore, similar rejections for 35 USC 103 are also applied.
C. Per claim 2: Applicant requires that : if/when the maximum expected errors are within the maximum permissible error computing
based at least in part on the determined pose, an actuation signal and actuating
the vehicle, the driving assistance system, with the actuation signal.
The examiner submits that if/when there are no error, a signal to make a vehicle continues its trajectory is normally generated (e.g., a vehicle is currently within a safe protection level (see Reid’s NPL, pg.11 col. I, Fig. 16)
D.Per claim 3: Applicant requires that the alert limit service comprises database in which maximum permissible errors are stored
Reid’s NPL suggests that idea with each type of vehicle’s maximum acceptable dimensions; they are used for comparisons to generate an alert signal (see Reid’s NPL, pg.8 col. I,TABLE V)
E.Per claim 4: Applicant requires that a database is located on board the vehicle; Reid’s NPL, pg.7 col. I,TABLE II suggests this claimed idea.
F.Per claim 5: Applicant requires maximum permissible errors are stored in a database; Reid’s NPL suggests this limitation (see Reid’s NPL, pg.7 col. I,TABLE II) representing:the strictest possible maximum permissible errors that may be rendered more lenient by maximum permissible errors (e.g., permitting a relax/broader range before alarming depending on a certain intent of use) , or using exactly parameters from required Reid’s NPL TABLE V (see Reid’s NPL, pg.8 col. I,TABLE V).
G. Per claim 9 : Reid’s NPL disclose “Longitudinal and vertical requirements are more forgiving”
“The other important factor is road width, which typically ranges from3.6meters on standard freeways to2.7meters on limited residential streets” (see Reid’s NPL page 8, col. II, last para.) and “Longitudinal and vertical requirements are more forgiving, with numbers in the 0.4 meters (95%) range, with pointing requirements in each direction of 0.5 degrees (0.01 radians) (95%). Operations on local roads require lateral and longitudinal accuracies in the 0.1 meters (95%) range with pointing requirements of 0.17 degrees (3 milliradians) (95%)”(see Reid’s NPL page 13, col. II, 1st para.).
Reid’s NPL also teaches “The update rate can be throttled based on speed, slowing during low speed driving to save compute and power, and to increase range.”; therefore, adjusting/modifying data ranges is appreciated by one of skill in the art at the time of invention was made.
7. Claims 6-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid’s NPL in view of Shimamura (US Pat. 11718976B2).
The rationales and reference to reject claim 1 are incorporated.
Per claim 6: Reid’s NPL does not retrieve required data via a cloud service; however, Shimamura suggests that idea (see Shimamura col. 12 lines 39-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Reid’s NPL with Shimamura’s suggestion to retrieve current data in real-time by utilizing a reliable distributed network – which task has been a successful expectation.
B. Per claim 7 : Reid’s NPL already discloses that real-time data are used (see Reid’’s NPL page 14, col. I, 3rd para); because there are contingent limitations in this method - Applicant requires two “when” condition in this claim “if/when the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (see MPEP 2111.04 II. Contingent Limitations
Then a limitation of “when the information is found to be still accurate, using it to determine the sought maximum permissible errors “ is suggested by Reid’s NPL (pg 14 TABLEs IX, and X) . to determine a worst-case difference/error).
C. Per claim 8 : Reid’s NPL and Shimamura already disclose that real-time data are used (e.g., using data from a cloud service, see Reid’s NPL page 14, col. I, 3rd para and see Shimamura col. 12 lines 39-41);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Reid’s NPL with Shimamura’s suggestion to select data from a cloud services first, if not possible using a database onboard a vehicle because data from a cloud service is most updated data comparing to onboard vehicle’s data.
D. Per claims 11- 12 : Reid’s NPL already discloses a relationship of accidents/(an undesired event) of road motor vehicle without using localization data (see Reid’s NPL pg.5 Fig. 9, and with LOCALIZATION - vehicle’s pose to increase safety on pg. 6 Fig. 10).
E. Per claim 13 : Reid’s NPL also discloses steps wherein an undesired event comprises entry of the vehicle into an area where other traffic participants have priority (e.g., a YIELD area before “entering a freeway”, see Reid’s NPL pg. 12 col. I, 2nd paragraph);
F.Per claim 14 : Reid’s NPL in view of Shimura also suggests a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing a computer program (see Shimura FIG. 14), to:
determine maximum permissible errors by querying the maximum permissible errors (e.g., using a database for comparison, see Reid’s NPL pg. 7 col. I, Table II), compare the determined maximum expected errors with the maximum permissible errors (e.g., using Table II for comparison, see Reid’s NPL pg. 7 col. I, Table II, and last para graph); and
if/when the maximum expected errors exceed the maximum permissible errors, cause a disengaging of the autonomous operation of the vehicle,
or the driving assistance system (e.g., using “driver assistant feature”, see Reid’s NPL pg. 2 col. I, last paragraph); in the localization module (40) of claim 9,
and cause the one or more computers and/or compute instances to perform a method
(100, 200) according to claim 1 (“the target level of safety is used to allocate appropriate integrity risk to each element of the system including localization.” see Reid’s NPL pg. 3 col. I, 2nd para graph);
G.Per new dependent claims 20-21. The rationales and reference to reject claim 1/11 are incorporated.
Reid suggests a remedial action comprises a step of:
prompting a human driver to take over control (see Reid, pg. 6, col. II, 1st para., wherein Reid suggests “The human driver must be ready to take over dynamic driving tasks immediately when the driver determines the system is incapable”, and may use additional sensor(s) as shown in Fig. 7 (because of an error),
PNG
media_image2.png
351
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
8. Pending claims 1-14, and 17-21 are rejected.
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 10:30AM- 6:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.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 (toll- free). 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.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights