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 .
In response to amendment filed 05/11/2026, claims 1,2, 4-5, and 9 have been amended. Claims 6 and 8 have been canceled. No claims are new.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokosz (DE 102018222663 A1) in view of Wilbers et al. (US 20210341310 A1). Examiner herein relies on translated copy of Rokosz attached with this Office Action for citation.
In regards to claim 1, Rokosz teaches, A method for operating a vehicle, the method comprising: (See page 1, the invention is particularly suitable for use in connection with autonomous driving)
obtaining sensor data from a sensor of the vehicle configured to measure features of surroundings of the vehicle; (See page 4, The parameter estimation and / or the determination of the first additional integrity information can take place, for example, on the basis of data from a sensor of a motor vehicle. The first additional integrity information is preferably determined at least also on the basis of data from an environment sensor of a motor vehicle. The environment sensor can be, for example, a camera, a RADAR sensor, a LIDAR sensor and / or an ultrasonic sensor)
determining a base integrity information item based on the sensor data, (See page 4, The parameter estimation and / or the determination of the first additional integrity information can take place, for example, on the basis of data from a sensor of a motor vehicle…claim 1, determining basic integrity information (2) by means of a basic module (3) of a modular system (4)…page 4, The basic integrity information can be, for example, a variance and / or a residual of the parameter estimate.)
determining at least one additional integrity information item based on the sensor data, (See page 4, The parameter estimation and / or the determination of the first additional integrity information can take place, for example, on the basis of data from a sensor of a motor vehicle. The first additional integrity information is preferably determined at least also on the basis of data from an environment sensor of a motor vehicle. The environment sensor can be, for example, a camera, a RADAR sensor, a LIDAR sensor and / or an ultrasonic sensor…claim 1, b) determining a first additional integrity information (5) by means of a first additional module (6) of the modular system (4))
determining the integrity range using the base integrity information item and the at least one additional integrity information item, the integrity range describing a range in which the position is located with a minimum probability; and (See claim 1, c) determining the integrity area (1) using at least the basic integrity information (2) or at least the basic integrity information (2) and the first additional integrity information (5) when the first additional integrity information (5) has been determined…pages 2-3, The range of integrity is preferably a protection level. The protection level usually describes the (spatial, in particular two- or three-dimensional) area in which an estimated parameter (value) with a minimum probability (actually) lies…)
operating the vehicle … (See page 3, driving operation of an at least partially automated or even autonomously operating (or operated) motor vehicle…)
Rokosz does not specifically teach, determining a position of the vehicle based on the features of the surroundings of the vehicle; determining a base integrity information item based on the sensor data [features surrounding vehicle], the at least one additional integrity information item including at least one of (i) a number of and (ii) a distribution of the features of the surroundings of the vehicle, operating the vehicle depending on the position and the integrity range.
Wilbers further teaches, determining a position of the vehicle based on the features of the surroundings of the vehicle; (See paragraph 30, determines the position of the transportation vehicle itself from the position of the number of landmarks…paragraph 20, The distances to specific features of the surrounding area recorded in the map, which are also referred to as landmarks, are determined through evaluation of the images captured by the sensors. This then results in an improved accuracy in the self-localization.)
determining a …information item based on the sensor data [features surrounding vehicle], (See paragraph 20, The distances to specific features of the surrounding area recorded in the map, which are also referred to as landmarks, are determined through evaluation of the images captured by the sensors…paragraph 81, the quality of localization is also estimated. In the example embodiment shown, this estimation is based on the calculation of the covariance of the positions of the landmarks still to be observed)
the …information item including at least one of (i) a number of and (ii) a distribution of the features of the surroundings of the vehicle, (See paragraph 28, The quality of localization is typically dependent on the number of visible features of the surrounding area and on their spatial distribution. It can generally be stated that the more features of the surrounding area there are available for the comparison with the map and the better their spatial distribution, the better the quality of localization will be. A quality measure can be predicted for the route ahead from the knowledge of the features of the surrounding area (number and spatial distribution) which are presumably visible to the transportation vehicle sensors during the journey…paragraph 38, the quality of localization in the self-localization of the transportation vehicle is determined depending on the number of landmarks which are to be observed in future. Also see paragraphs 39-40 and 81)
operating the vehicle depending on the position and the integrity range. (See paragraph 25, 28, 30, determines the position of the transportation vehicle itself from the position of the number of landmarks…The quality of localization is important information which is used in assessing whether the automatic driving function can be operated in a safe state… If the automatic driving function is estimated in such a way that it no longer meets the required safety criteria, it must either be deactivated and the driver of the transportation vehicle is prompted to take charge of the control function, or other measures are taken, such as braking the transportation vehicle till it stops, steering the transportation vehicle to the roadside or onto a parking space. Quality of localization is interpreted as claimed integrity range (see par. 47, An upper limit for a quality measure of the localization is estimated.))
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the integrity computation architecture of Rokosz to further comprise number and distribution metrics as quality indicator inputs taught by Wilbers because both references address the identical problem of computing a reliable localization integrity for vehicles and doing so would yield the predictable advantage of a more accurate and environmentally adaptive integrity range that reflects the actual geometry of the detectable surrounding features.
In regards to claim 2, Rokosz-Wilbers teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the position is performed according to the features of the surroundings of the vehicle relative to known features in the surroundings of the vehicle. (See Wilbers paragraph 20, The transportation vehicle “scans” the surrounding area… The distances to specific features of the surrounding area recorded in the map, which are also referred to as landmarks, are determined through evaluation of the images captured by the sensors…paragraph 21, static structures and patterns in the surrounding area of the transportation vehicle are detected by the transportation vehicle sensors and are compared with corresponding entries in a map which is available in the transportation vehicle…paragraph 30, a transportation vehicle in which a map of the surrounding area is used for the self-localization, the map being used in controlling the transportation vehicle, wherein a transportation vehicle, when driving on a road, attempts to detect a number of landmarks)
In regards to claim 3, Rokosz-Wilbers teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the sensor data is obtained from a camera sensor, video sensor, radar sensor, or lidar sensor. (See Rokosz page 4, LIDAR, RADAR, camera)
In regards to claim 4, Rokosz-Wilbers teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the position and the base integrity information item are determined by a filter. (See Rokosz pages 4-5, Kalman filtering)
In regards to claim 5, Rokosz-Wilbers teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the base integrity information item is determined based on a mathematical model and/or describes a stochastic measure. (See Rokosz pages 4-5, stochastic parameters, basic mathematical model)
In regards to claim 7, Rokosz-Wilbers teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the integrity range is determined as a protection level. (See page 2, Such an area of integrity can also be referred to as a so-called “protection level”.)
Claims 9-10 are similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
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 JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights