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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections 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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP23203508.9, filed on 10/13/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/03/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 5: “correction data,” should read –correction data;--
Claim 1, Line 9: “enhanced ODD, and” should read –enhanced ODD; ---
Claim 1, Line 12: “selected otherwise, and” should read –selected otherwise; and—
Claim 8, Line 2: “signals,” should read –signals;--
Claim 8, Line 4: “based station,” should read –base station;--
Claim 8, Line 6: “data,” should read “data;”
Claim 8, Line 7: “a control unit” should read –the control unit—
Claim 11, Line 5: “enhanced ODD,” should read –enhanced ODD;--
Claim 11, Line 6: “vehicle, receiving” should read –vehicle; receiving—
Claim 11, Line 9: “correction data,” should read –correction data;---
Claim 11, Line 11: “a nominal ODD” should read –the nominal ODD—
Claim 11, Line 12: “otherwise, and” should read –otherwise; and—
Claim 18, Line 1: “determining” should read –the determining—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (similarly claim 11) recites limitation in lines 11-12 “an RTK-enhanced ODD…a nominal ODD”. It is unclear if applicant intends to introduce a new RTK-enhanced ODD and a new nominal ODD which is/are different than the one already claimed in Lines 6-7 since the phrase “an RTK-enhanced ODD…a nominal ODD” is used again which implies that a new RTK-enhanced ODD and a new nominal ODD different from the one in Lines 6-7 is/are being introduced to the claim, hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the available RTK receivers" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear which receivers are available and the available RTK receivers’ relationship to the vehicle state sensors (e.g., vehicle state sensors comprises RTK receivers?) or if they are different from the vehicle state sensors since “the received kinematic parameters” are from the state sensors and the available RTK receivers. Hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the received kinematic parameters…a first and a second RTK receiver" in Lines 1-2. It is unclear what’s the relationship between “a first and a second RTK receiver” and “the vehicle state sensors” (e.g., vehicle state sensors comprises RTK receivers?) or if they are different from the vehicle state sensors since “the received kinematic parameters” are from the state sensors and a first and a second RTK receiver. Hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the received kinematic parameters…a third and a fourth RTK receiver" in Lines 1-2. It is unclear what’s the relationship between “a third and a fourth RTK receiver” and “the vehicle state sensors” (e.g., vehicle state sensors comprises RTK receivers?) or if they are different from the vehicle state sensors since “the received kinematic parameters” are from the state sensors and a third and a fourth RTK receiver. Hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the relative positions of the available RTK receivers" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear which receivers are available and the available RTK receivers’ relationship to the vehicle state sensors (e.g., vehicle state sensors comprises RTK receivers?) or if they are different from the vehicle state sensors since “the received kinematic parameters” are from the state sensors and the available RTK receivers. Hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claims 9-10 recites limitation in line 2 “and a control unit”. It is unclear if applicant intends to introduce a new control unit which is different than the one already claimed in Claim 8 and/or claim 1 since the phrase “a control unit” is used again which implies that a new control unit different from the one in claims 8 and/or 1 is being introduced to the claim, hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the relative positions of the available RTK receivers…the determined relative positions" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19 is directed toward a computer program which is software per se. Therefore, claim 19 is not within at least one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 17S USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, claim 19does not fall within any statutory category.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and claim 19 also overcomes 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art Liu et al. (WO 2021/184320 A1 hereinafter Liu) discloses a vehicle positioning method and system for determining a first location of a vehicle at a first time (201); determining a first operational design domain (ODD) for the vehicle at a second time (202); performing, according to the first ODD, sampling around the first location to obtain multiple particles for particle filtering, the number or distribution of the multiple particles corresponding to the first ODD (203); and determining a second location of the vehicle at the second time according to the multiple particles (204). In the invention, appropriate classification of ODDs and adaptive configuration of the number or distribution of sampled particles for positioning computation can enhance the positioning efficiency of particle filtering while saving computing resources, thereby performing quick positioning of an automatic driving vehicle.
Further, prior art Omelchenko et al. (US 2012/0059554 A1 hereinafter Omelchenko) discloses an automatic blade control system for precision grading of terrain by a dozer, the dozer blade is automatically controlled based on measurement from a combination of a global navigation satellite system real-time kinematic mode (GNSS RTK) system and inertial sensors. A method for controlling the blade during a period of GNSS RTK system outage (refers to a time interval during which GNSS RTK solution is not available during example conditions of: (i) the rover moves into a position in which there is poor reception of satellite signals or communication signals; (ii) strong interference disrupts reception of satellite signals or communication signals by the rover; (iii) navigation receiver in the rover has not locked on the satellite signals; (iv) strong interference disrupts reception of the satellite signals by the base; (v) the communication signals are not generated and transmitted by the base; and (vi) there is equipment failure at the base or at the rover)) where the blade control system enters the GNSS RTK system outage mitigation state, in which (a) the blade slope angle controller is in the active state, (b) the blade elevation controller is in the inactive state, (c) the blade pitch angle controller is in the active state, and (d) the blade slope reference angle value and the blade pitch angle reference value are selected from the target plane. That is, the disclosed system checks whether GNSS RTK system is working normal, if not, the blade control system enters into a fallback control system where some of the control features are deactivated compared to when GNSS RTK system is in normal operating state.
Further, prior art Jordan et al. (US 2016/0313450 A1 hereinafter Jordan) discloses a high-precision vehicle positioning system that combines GNSS satellite data with real-time kinematic correction techniques and dead reckoning to improve localization accuracy beyond conventional automotive GPS system. The system uses two separate antennas on a vehicle. each receiving GNSS signals from satellites; the system comprises processor and memory that calculate independent position values from each antenna’s GNSS measurement; the system compares differences between those measurement to determine a correction value that compensates for local errors and the correction can then be combined with dead reckoning data from vehicle sensors to maintain position when satellite signals are weak or blocked.
Still further, prior art Lie et al. (US 2017/0299730 A1 hereinafter Lie) discloses a satellite navigation receiver and method that switches between RTK mode and another positioning mode when RTK correction data becomes unavailable. It describes a GNSS receiver that transitions between a real-time kinematic mode and a normal precise positioning mode when the RTK correction stream is interrupted or lost. That is, the system reacts to the availability of RTK correction data and change how the system determines and uses positioning information which is related to selecting different operational modes based on availability of RTK correction data.
Lastly, prior art Brannstrom et al. (US 2021/0107499 A1 hereinafter Brannstrom) discloses a method and system for controlling a control system of a vehicle having a first driver support module (e.g. ADAS feature) and a second driver support module (e.g. “under-development” ADS feature). The first driver support module and the second driver support module are capable of operation within an overlapping operational design domain (ODD). The method includes obtaining sensor data including information about a surrounding environment of the vehicle and determining fulfilment of the overlapping ODD based on the obtained sensor data. Further, if the overlapping ODD is fulfilled, the method includes switching between a first configuration where the first driver support module is active and the second driver support module is inactive, and a second configuration where the first driver support module is inactive and the second driver support module is active. That is, switching between different ODD based on the obtained sensor data about surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 1 (similarly claim 12), Prior art Liu, Omelchenko, Jordan, Lie, and Brannstrom taken either individually or in combination with each other or other prior art of records fail to teach or render obvious:
a vehicle state interface configured to receive vehicle state information from one or more vehicle state sensors, including kinematic parameters and information about availability of correction data,
a memory configured to store at least one nominal operational design domain, ODD, for the vehicle, and for each stored nominal ODD, a corresponding RTK-enhanced ODD, wherein each nominal ODD is associated with greater safety margins relative to its respective RTK-enhanced ODD, and
wherein the control unit is configured to select an active operational design domain, ODD, based on the availability of correction data, wherein an RTK-enhanced ODD is selected upon availability of correction data, and a nominal ODD is selected otherwise, and
wherein the control unit is configured to operate the vehicle using the kinematic parameters in accordance with the active ODD.
Based on the above, the combination of feature is considered allowable.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 would be allowable because they are dependent upon independent claims 1 and 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667