DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 6th, 2026. Claims 1-10 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed May 6th, 2026, Examiner maintains the previous claim interpretations, withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections; and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 claim rejections.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s arguments filed May 6th, 2026, the arguments have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments for the claim interpretation of the terms in claims 1, 2, 4, and 9, as set forth on page 8 of the Applicant’s remarks, the arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “the word “means” (or “step for”) is absent from Applicant’s claims. As such, applicant respectfully traverses this allegation and respectfully disagrees with this characterization…Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, taken together as a whole, recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the claimed function so as to preclude the application of 35 U.S.C 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph”.
As to point (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As per MPEP Section 2181, “configured to” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the word “means” (or “step for”). Additionally, in regards to the statement that there is sufficient structure, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The only structure recited in the claims are generic units for implementing steps taken by the positioning system, these units are considered nonstructural generic placeholders, per MPEP Section – IA.
Regarding the arguments for independent claims 1, 6, and 7, on pages 9-12 of the applicant’s remarks, the arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Kawai, alone or in combination with any other references cited, does not disclose, teach or suggest, at least and structure/function similar to a vehicle positioning system and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including, in part, “the second-vehicle information indicating which of the first vehicle and the second vehicle has a superior positioning performance” as recited in amended independent claims 1, 6, and 7 of the Applicant’s claimed disclosure.
As to point (b), Applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-20180203130 (hereinafter, “Neubecker”).
Regarding the arguments for dependent claims 2-5 and 8, as set forth on page 13 of the applicant’s remarks, the arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “claims 2-5 ang 8 are allowable, at least, for the same reasons given above for amended independent claims 1 and 7, because claims 2-5 are ultimately dependent on amended independent claim1 and claim 8 is dependent on amended independent claim 7”.
As to point (c), see point (b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6 and 7 currently recite “a first vehicle around a second vehicle”. The term around is a relative term and therefore needs to be corrected. Examiner suggests removing “around a second vehicle,” to overcome any relative term issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first-vehicle information receiving unit configured to receive” in claim 1. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0013]; of Applicant’s specification; “Each of these functional blocks 3 to 9 is composed mainly of a microcontroller having elements such as a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, and an I/O port. The microcontroller executes software processing by causing the CPU to execute a computer program stored in a non-transitory tangible storage medium, and executes hardware processing with a dedicated electronic circuit for controlling the vehicle positioning system 1. The computer program executed by the CPU includes an own-vehicle information provision program (also referred to as a second-vehicle information provision program)”.
“a surrounding information analysis unit configured to analyze” in claim 1. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0013]; of Applicant’s specification; “Each of these functional blocks 3 to 9 is composed mainly of a microcontroller having elements such as a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, and an I/O port. The microcontroller executes software processing by causing the CPU to execute a computer program stored in a non-transitory tangible storage medium, and executes hardware processing with a dedicated electronic circuit for controlling the vehicle positioning system 1. The computer program executed by the CPU includes an own-vehicle information provision program (also referred to as a second-vehicle information provision program)”.
“a positioning unit configured to perform positioning” in claim 1. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0013]; of Applicant’s specification; “Each of these functional blocks 3 to 9 is composed mainly of a microcontroller having elements such as a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, and an I/O port. The microcontroller executes software processing by causing the CPU to execute a computer program stored in a non-transitory tangible storage medium, and executes hardware processing with a dedicated electronic circuit for controlling the vehicle positioning system 1. The computer program executed by the CPU includes an own-vehicle information provision program (also referred to as a second-vehicle information provision program)”.
“a positioning accuracy determination unit configured to determine accuracy” in claims 1, 2 and 4. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0013]; of Applicant’s specification; “Each of these functional blocks 3 to 9 is composed mainly of a microcontroller having elements such as a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, and an I/O port. The microcontroller executes software processing by causing the CPU to execute a computer program stored in a non-transitory tangible storage medium, and executes hardware processing with a dedicated electronic circuit for controlling the vehicle positioning system 1. The computer program executed by the CPU includes an own-vehicle information provision program (also referred to as a second-vehicle information provision program)”.
“a second-vehicle information generation unit configured to generate” in claim 1. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0013]; of Applicant’s specification; “Each of these functional blocks 3 to 9 is composed mainly of a microcontroller having elements such as a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, and an I/O port. The microcontroller executes software processing by causing the CPU to execute a computer program stored in a non-transitory tangible storage medium, and executes hardware processing with a dedicated electronic circuit for controlling the vehicle positioning system 1. The computer program executed by the CPU includes an own-vehicle information provision program (also referred to as a second-vehicle information provision program)”.
“a second-vehicle information transmitting unit configured to transmit” in claim 1. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0013]; of Applicant’s specification; “Each of these functional blocks 3 to 9 is composed mainly of a microcontroller having elements such as a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, and an I/O port. The microcontroller executes software processing by causing the CPU to execute a computer program stored in a non-transitory tangible storage medium, and executes hardware processing with a dedicated electronic circuit for controlling the vehicle positioning system 1. The computer program executed by the CPU includes an own-vehicle information provision program (also referred to as a second-vehicle information provision program)”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 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.
The term “superior” in claims 1, 6, and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “superior” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Applicant’s claim merely states indicating a superior positioning performance between first and second vehicle and that the second-vehicle information is based on a determination of accuracy, the claim does not state what level of accuracy would render one performance as being superior to another. For the purpose of prior art examination, Examiner is interpreting a superior positioning performance, as a performance having a higher accuracy level in comparison to another performance. Claims 2-5 and 8-10 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 7.
The terms “superior” and “inferior” in claims 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “superior” and “inferior” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Applicant’s claim merely states indicating a superior positioning performance between first and second vehicle and that the second-vehicle information is based on a determination of accuracy, the claim does not state what level of accuracy would render one performance as being superior to another. For the purpose of prior art examination, Examiner is interpreting a superior positioning performance, as a performance having a higher accuracy level in comparison to another performance.
The terms “large” and “small” in claims 10 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “large” and “small” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Applicant’s claim does not contain any reference as to what the line would be between a number of satellites being small versus large.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016118493A (hereinafter, “Kawai”) in view of US-20180203130 (hereinafter, “Neubecker”).
Regarding claim 1 Kawai discloses a vehicle positioning system (see at least [0001]; “The present invention relates to a GNSS positioning device, and more particularly to a technique for improving positioning accuracy”) comprising:
a first-vehicle information receiving unit configured to receive first-vehicle information transmitted by a first vehicle around a second vehicle (Examiner Note: applicant defines the first vehicle as the other vehicle and the second vehicle as the own vehicle in which the positioning system is located)(see at least [0015]; “the in-vehicle devices 100 transmit and receive vehicle reception information 14 to and from each other through inter-vehicle communication” vehicles in the vicinity of one another may transmit vehicle information to one another, the vehicle reception information corresponds to first-vehicle information);
a surrounding information analysis unit configured to analyze the first-vehicle information to acquire a first positioning performance of the first vehicle (see at least [0015]; “The vehicle reception information 14 includes the C/N (dB) of the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> by the in-vehicle device 100 that transmits the vehicle reception information 14. The C/N corresponds to the reception quality information in the claims,” the reception quality of the vehicle reception information corresponds to the first positioning performance);
a positioning unit configured to perform positioning of the second vehicle based on satellite information acquired by the second vehicle and the first positioning performance (see at least [0020]; “The positioning processing unit 105 is a computer equipped with a CPU, ROM, RAM, etc., and sequentially calculates coordinates representing the current position using information obtained from the wireless communication device 101, the GNSS receiver 102, the gyro sensor 103, and the vehicle speed sensor 104,” the information received by the GNSS receiver corresponds to the satellite information acquired by the own vehicle, and the information received by the wireless communication device corresponds to the information received by surrounding vehicles and would include the quality information, which corresponds to first positioning performance);
a positioning accuracy determination unit configured to determine accuracy of the positioning of the second vehicle based on the first positioning performance and a second positioning performance (see at least [0018]; “The GNSS receiver 102 receives the positioning signal 11…In addition, the C/N is determined for each positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> from which the positioning signal 11 is received”) of the second vehicle (see at least [0063-0064 ]; “by comparing the C/N contained in the vehicle reception information received from surrounding vehicles with the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 for the positioning signal 11 received from the same positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub>, it is possible to accurately determine whether the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath. If it is determined that the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath (S32: YES, S34: YES), the positioning signal 11 is excluded and positioning calculations are performed (S5, S6). Therefore, even in an environment where the positioning signal 11 may be affected by multipath, it is possible to suppress a decrease in positioning accuracy,” the accuracy of the positioning is determined based on a comparison of the reception quality of the own and surrounding vehicle);
a second-vehicle information generation unit configured to generate second-vehicle information based on the determination result of the accuracy by the positioning accuracy determination unit, the second-vehicle information…including at least one of information indicating which satellite is used for the positioning of the second vehicle, information indicating which satellite is not used for the positioning of the second vehicle, ephemeris information, or pseudorange correction information (see at least [0115]; “the in-vehicle devices 100 transmit and receive vehicle reception information to and from each other through inter-vehicle communication. The vehicle reception information 14 includes the C/N (dB) of the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> by the in-vehicle device 100” the vehicle is capable of transmitting its own vehicle information in addition to receiving vehicle information, where the signal is received from, G<sub> ｎ </sub>, is the information indicating which satellite is used, this information may be transmitted to surrounding vehicles”); and
a second-vehicle information transmitting unit configured to transmit the second-vehicle information to the first vehicle (see at least [0115]; “the in-vehicle devices 100 transmit and receive vehicle reception information to and from each other through inter-vehicle communication. The vehicle reception information 14 includes the C/N (dB) of the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> by the in-vehicle device 100” the vehicle is capable of transmitting its own vehicle information in addition to receiving vehicle information, where the signal is received from, G<sub> ｎ </sub>, is the information indicating which satellite is used, this information may be transmitted to surrounding vehicles”).
Kawai does not disclose second-vehicle information indicating which of the first and second vehicle has a superior positioning performance.
Neubecker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches second-vehicle information indicating which of the first and second vehicle has a superior positioning performance (see at least [0019]; “the term “trust factor” will be used hereinafter to refer to accuracy and confidence level of the GPS data,” and [0021]; “The vehicles traveling within a cluster exchange data within a predetermined communication range of one another via V2V communications. For the purposes described herein, each vehicle will consider itself as a host vehicle and other communicating vehicles as remote vehicles. Each vehicle communicating with one another receives a GPS message from another vehicle which includes the accuracy and confidence level of its own GPS data… Each respective vehicle can determine whether another vehicle within the cluster has a GPS trust factor the same or higher than its own GPS data,” the GPS trust factor relates to the accuracy of each vehicles positioning performance, this information is compared to determine which vehicle has the highest trust factor (superior positioning)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the positioning system of Kawai with the superiority determination of Neubecker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enhancing the positioning determination of a vehicle (see at least Neubecker; [0021]).
Regarding claim 2 Kawai in view of Neubecker renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Kawai discloses wherein the positioning accuracy determination unit is configured to compare the first positioning performance with the second positioning performance by comparing information dependent on a positioning situation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle (see at least [0063-0064 ]; “by comparing the C/N contained in the vehicle reception information received from surrounding vehicles with the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 for the positioning signal 11 received from the same positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub>, it is possible to accurately determine whether the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath. If it is determined that the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath (S32: YES, S34: YES), the positioning signal 11 is excluded and positioning calculations are performed (S5, S6). Therefore, even in an environment where the positioning signal 11 may be affected by multipath, it is possible to suppress a decrease in positioning accuracy,” the accuracy of the positioning is determined based on a comparison of the reception quality of the own and surrounding vehicle).
Regarding claim 3 Kawai in view of Neubecker renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Kawai discloses wherein the information dependent on the positioning situation is at least one of information of a satellite used for the positioning or a reliability of the satellite used for the positioning (see at least [0025]; “the satellite ID received in step S1 is registered in a receiving satellite list, and the satellite ID and the C/N received in step S1 are registered in a satellite management database (hereinafter referred to as satellite management DB),” the quality of the satellite signal is equivalent to a reliability of a satellite and is used in determining positioning).
Regarding claim 4 Kawai in view of Neubecker renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Kawai discloses wherein the positioning accuracy determination unit is configured to compare the first positioning performance with the second positioning performance by comparing information independent of a positioning situation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle see at least [0063-0064 ]; “by comparing the C/N contained in the vehicle reception information received from surrounding vehicles with the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 for the positioning signal 11 received from the same positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub>, it is possible to accurately determine whether the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath. If it is determined that the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath (S32: YES, S34: YES), the positioning signal 11 is excluded and positioning calculations are performed (S5, S6). Therefore, even in an environment where the positioning signal 11 may be affected by multipath, it is possible to suppress a decrease in positioning accuracy,” the accuracy of the positioning is determined based on a comparison of the reception quality of the own and surrounding vehicle, and [0019]; “The gyro sensor 103 and the vehicle speed sensor 104 are sensors for performing inertial dead reckoning navigation when satellite positioning is not possible underground, under an overpass, or the like,” the sensors which are independent of the satellites are used in place of the satellites for positioning when satellites are unavailable).
Regarding claim 5 Kawai in view of Neubecker renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Kawai discloses wherein the information independent of the positioning situation is at least one of antenna information, performance of positioning algorithm or a chip, a satellite system available for the positioning, or inertial sensor information (see at least [0019]; “The gyro sensor 103 and the vehicle speed sensor 104 are sensors for performing inertial dead reckoning navigation when satellite positioning is not possible underground, under an overpass, or the like,” the information provided by the gyro sensor and speed sensor are equivalent to inertial sensor information).
Regarding claim 6 Kawai discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a second-vehicle information provision program (see at least [0020]; “The positioning processing unit 105 is a computer equipped with a CPU, ROM, RAM, etc., and sequentially calculates coordinates representing the current position using information obtained from the wireless communication device 101, the GNSS receiver 102, the gyro sensor 103, and the vehicle speed sensor 104”) configured to cause a vehicle positioning system to:
receive first-vehicle information transmitted by a first vehicle around a second vehicle (Examiner Note: applicant defines the first vehicle as the other vehicle and the second vehicle as the own vehicle in which the positioning system is located)(see at least [0015]; “the in-vehicle devices 100 transmit and receive vehicle reception information 14 to and from each other through inter-vehicle communication” vehicles in the vicinity of one another may transmit vehicle information to one another, the vehicle reception information corresponds to first-vehicle information);
analyze the first-vehicle information to acquire a first positioning performance of the first vehicle (see at least [0015]; “The vehicle reception information 14 includes the C/N (dB) of the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> by the in-vehicle device 100 that transmits the vehicle reception information 14. The C/N corresponds to the reception quality information in the claims,” the reception quality of the vehicle reception information corresponds to the first positioning performance);
perform positioning of the second vehicle based on satellite information acquired by the second vehicle and the first positioning performance (see at least [0020]; “The positioning processing unit 105 is a computer equipped with a CPU, ROM, RAM, etc., and sequentially calculates coordinates representing the current position using information obtained from the wireless communication device 101, the GNSS receiver 102, the gyro sensor 103, and the vehicle speed sensor 104,” the information received by the GNSS receiver corresponds to the satellite information acquired by the own vehicle, and the information received by the wireless communication device corresponds to the information received by surrounding vehicles and would include the quality information, which corresponds to first positioning performance );
determine accuracy of the positioning of the second vehicle based on the first positioning performance and a second positioning performance (see at least [0018]; “The GNSS receiver 102 receives the positioning signal 11…In addition, the C/N is determined for each positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> from which the positioning signal 11 is received”) of the second vehicle (see at least [0063-0064 ]; “by comparing the C/N contained in the vehicle reception information received from surrounding vehicles with the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 for the positioning signal 11 received from the same positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub>, it is possible to accurately determine whether the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath. If it is determined that the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath (S32: YES, S34: YES), the positioning signal 11 is excluded and positioning calculations are performed (S5, S6). Therefore, even in an environment where the positioning signal 11 may be affected by multipath, it is possible to suppress a decrease in positioning accuracy,” the accuracy of the positioning is determined based on a comparison of the reception quality of the own and surrounding vehicle);
generate second-vehicle information based on a determination result of the accuracy, the second-vehicle information…including at least one of information indicating which satellite is used for the positioning of the second vehicle, information indicating which satellite is not used for the positioning of the second vehicle, ephemeris information, or pseudorange correction information (see at least [0115]; “the in-vehicle devices 100 transmit and receive vehicle reception information to and from each other through inter-vehicle communication. The vehicle reception information 14 includes the C/N (dB) of the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> by the in-vehicle device 100” the vehicle is capable of transmitting its own vehicle information in addition to receiving vehicle information, where the signal is received from, G<sub> ｎ </sub>, is the information indicating which satellite is used, this information may be transmitted to surrounding vehicles”); and
transmit the second-vehicle information to the first vehicle (see at least [0115]; “the in-vehicle devices 100 transmit and receive vehicle reception information to and from each other through inter-vehicle communication. The vehicle reception information 14 includes the C/N (dB) of the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> by the in-vehicle device 100” the vehicle is capable of transmitting its own vehicle information in addition to receiving vehicle information, where the signal is received from, G<sub> ｎ </sub>, is the information indicating which satellite is used, this information may be transmitted to surrounding vehicles”).
Kawai does not disclose second-vehicle information indicating which of the first and second vehicle has a superior positioning performance.
Neubecker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches second-vehicle information indicating which of the first and second vehicle has a superior positioning performance (see at least [0019]; “the term “trust factor” will be used hereinafter to refer to accuracy and confidence level of the GPS data,” and [0021]; “The vehicles traveling within a cluster exchange data within a predetermined communication range of one another via V2V communications. For the purposes described herein, each vehicle will consider itself as a host vehicle and other communicating vehicles as remote vehicles. Each vehicle communicating with one another receives a GPS message from another vehicle which includes the accuracy and confidence level of its own GPS data… Each respective vehicle can determine whether another vehicle within the cluster has a GPS trust factor the same or higher than its own GPS data,” the GPS trust factor relates to the accuracy of each vehicles positioning performance, this information is compared to determine which vehicle has the highest trust factor (superior positioning)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the positioning system of Kawai with the superiority determination of Neubecker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enhancing the positioning determination of a vehicle (see at least Neubecker; [0021]).
Regarding claim 7 Kawai discloses a vehicle positioning system (see at least [0001]; “The present invention relates to a GNSS positioning device, and more particularly to a technique for improving positioning accuracy”) comprising at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor having a memory storing computer program code (see at least [0020]; “The positioning processing unit 105 is a computer equipped with a CPU, ROM, RAM, etc., and sequentially calculates coordinates representing the current position using information obtained from the wireless communication device 101, the GNSS receiver 102, the gyro sensor 103, and the vehicle speed sensor 104”), wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor having the memory is configured to cause the vehicle positioning system to:
receive first-vehicle information transmitted by a first vehicle around a second vehicle (Examiner Note: applicant defines the first vehicle as the other vehicle and the second vehicle as the own vehicle in which the positioning system is located)(see at least [0015]; “the in-vehicle devices 100 transmit and receive vehicle reception information 14 to and from each other through inter-vehicle communication” vehicles in the vicinity of one another may transmit vehicle information to one another, the vehicle reception information corresponds to first-vehicle information);
analyze the first-vehicle information to acquire a first positioning performance of the first vehicle (see at least [0015]; “The vehicle reception information 14 includes the C/N (dB) of the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> by the in-vehicle device 100 that transmits the vehicle reception information 14. The C/N corresponds to the reception quality information in the claims,” the reception quality of the vehicle reception information corresponds to the first positioning performance);
perform positioning of the second vehicle based on satellite information acquired by the second vehicle and the first positioning performance (see at least [0020]; “The positioning processing unit 105 is a computer equipped with a CPU, ROM, RAM, etc., and sequentially calculates coordinates representing the current position using information obtained from the wireless communication device 101, the GNSS receiver 102, the gyro sensor 103, and the vehicle speed sensor 104,” the information received by the GNSS receiver corresponds to the satellite information acquired by the own vehicle, and the information received by the wireless communication device corresponds to the information received by surrounding vehicles and would include the quality information, which corresponds to first positioning performance);
determine accuracy of the positioning of the second vehicle based on the first positioning performance and a second positioning performance (see at least [0018]; “The GNSS receiver 102 receives the positioning signal 11…In addition, the C/N is determined for each positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> from which the positioning signal 11 is received”) of the second vehicle (see at least [0063-0064 ]; “by comparing the C/N contained in the vehicle reception information received from surrounding vehicles with the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 for the positioning signal 11 received from the same positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub>, it is possible to accurately determine whether the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath. If it is determined that the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath (S32: YES, S34: YES), the positioning signal 11 is excluded and positioning calculations are performed (S5, S6). Therefore, even in an environment where the positioning signal 11 may be affected by multipath, it is possible to suppress a decrease in positioning accuracy,” the accuracy of the positioning is determined based on a comparison of the reception quality of the own and surrounding vehicle);
generate second-vehicle information based on a determination result of the accuracy, the second-vehicle information…including at least one of information indicating which satellite is used for the positioning of the second vehicle, information indicating which satellite is not used for the positioning of the second vehicle, ephemeris information, or pseudorange correction information (see at least [0115]; “the in-vehicle devices 100 transmit and receive vehicle reception information to and from each other through inter-vehicle communication. The vehicle reception information 14 includes the C/N (dB) of the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> by the in-vehicle device 100” the vehicle is capable of transmitting its own vehicle information in addition to receiving vehicle information, where the signal is received from, G<sub> ｎ </sub>, is the information indicating which satellite is used, this information may be transmitted to surrounding vehicles”); and
transmit the second-vehicle information to the first vehicle (see at least [0115]; “the in-vehicle devices 100 transmit and receive vehicle reception information to and from each other through inter-vehicle communication. The vehicle reception information 14 includes the C/N (dB) of the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> by the in-vehicle device 100” the vehicle is capable of transmitting its own vehicle information in addition to receiving vehicle information, where the signal is received from, G<sub> ｎ </sub>, is the information indicating which satellite is used, this information may be transmitted to surrounding vehicles”).
Kawai does not disclose second-vehicle information indicating which of the first and second vehicle has a superior positioning performance.
Neubecker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches second-vehicle information indicating which of the first and second vehicle has a superior positioning performance (see at least [0019]; “the term “trust factor” will be used hereinafter to refer to accuracy and confidence level of the GPS data,” and [0021]; “The vehicles traveling within a cluster exchange data within a predetermined communication range of one another via V2V communications. For the purposes described herein, each vehicle will consider itself as a host vehicle and other communicating vehicles as remote vehicles. Each vehicle communicating with one another receives a GPS message from another vehicle which includes the accuracy and confidence level of its own GPS data… Each respective vehicle can determine whether another vehicle within the cluster has a GPS trust factor the same or higher than its own GPS data,” the GPS trust factor relates to the accuracy of each vehicles positioning performance, this information is compared to determine which vehicle has the highest trust factor (superior positioning)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the positioning system of Kawai with the superiority determination of Neubecker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enhancing the positioning determination of a vehicle (see at least Neubecker; [0021]).
Regarding claim 8 Kawai in view of Neubecker renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Kawai discloses wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor having the memory is further configured to cause the vehicle positioning system to:
compare the first positioning performance and the second positioning performance (see at least [0063-0064 ]; “by comparing the C/N contained in the vehicle reception information received from surrounding vehicles with the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 for the positioning signal 11 received from the same positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub>, it is possible to accurately determine whether the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath. If it is determined that the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is affected by multipath (S32: YES, S34: YES), the positioning signal 11 is excluded and positioning calculations are performed (S5, S6). Therefore, even in an environment where the positioning signal 11 may be affected by multipath, it is possible to suppress a decrease in positioning accuracy,” the accuracy of the positioning is determined based on a comparison of the reception quality of the own and surrounding vehicle);
perform the positioning of the second vehicle using the satellite information and the first-vehicle information when the first positioning performance is superior to the second positioning performance (see at least [0065]; “Two types of comparisons are made between the C/N included in the vehicle reception information received from the surrounding vehicles and the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the host vehicle C0. First, if the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is lower by a threshold value T1 or more than the C/N contained in the vehicle reception information received from surrounding vehicles, the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> being judged is excluded from the positioning calculation,” when the information of a vehicles own position is of lesser quality than the first vehicle information received, which is based on satellite signals received by that vehicle, the information included in the second positioning performance is excluded from the positioning calculation); and
perform the positioning of the second vehicle based on the satellite information without using the first-vehicle information when the first positioning performance is inferior to the second positioning performance (see at least [0065]; “Two types of comparisons are made between the C/N included in the vehicle reception information received from the surrounding vehicles and the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the host vehicle C0. First, if the C/N of the positioning signal 11 received by the GNSS receiver 102 of the vehicle C0 is lower by a threshold value T1 or more than the C/N contained in the vehicle reception information received from surrounding vehicles, the positioning signal 11 received from the positioning satellite G<sub> ｎ </sub> being judged is excluded from the positioning calculation,” whichever information is of greater quality is used in the positioning calculation).
Regarding claim 9 in view of Neubecker renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Neubecker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the positioning accuracy determination unit is configured to compare the first positioning performance and the second positioning performance based on both information dependent on a positioning situation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle and vehicle specific information independent of the positioning situation (see at least [0021]; “The vehicles traveling within a cluster exchange data within a predetermined communication range of one another via V2V communications. For the purposes described herein, each vehicle will consider itself as a host vehicle and other communicating vehicles as remote vehicles. Each vehicle communicating with one another receives a GPS message from another vehicle which includes the accuracy and confidence level of its own GPS data. The GPS message broadcast to the other vehicles in the cluster may provide the number of satellites signals received by the remote vehicle, timing/receiver errors associated with a respective GPS receiver, and the accuracy and a confidence level. Each respective vehicle can determine whether another vehicle within the cluster has a GPS trust factor the same or higher than its own GPS data,” the trust factor of different vehicles is compared and may be based on the number of satellites, which corresponds to a positioning situation, and receiver errors associated with a respective GPS receiver, which corresponds to vehicle specific information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the positioning system of Kawai with the superiority determination of Neubecker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enhancing the positioning determination of a vehicle (see at least Neubecker; [0021]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai and Neubecker, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US-20200013281 (hereinafter, “Eriksson”).
Regarding claim 10 Kawai in view of Neubecker renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Kawai does not disclose the determination result of the accuracy comprises a classification into one of a plurality of patterns based on both (i) whether the positioning accuracy of the second vehicle is superior or inferior to the first vehicle, and (ii) whether a number of satellites used for the positioning of the second vehicle is large or small, and
the second vehicle information generation unit dynamically alters a content of the second-vehicle information according to the classification.
Eriksson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the determination result of the accuracy comprises a classification into one of a plurality of patterns (see at least [0022]; “Embodiments of the present invention include providing improved ASIL-classification by cooperative positioning,” a vehicle is assigned an ASIL classification based in part on positioning accuracy) based on both (i) whether the positioning accuracy of the second vehicle is superior or inferior to the first vehicle (see at least [0034]; “The cooperative positioning and/or relative coordinates determined by the modules 100a-100n may have a greater accuracy than the location information determined using the signals GA-GN (e.g., using GNSS data). The cooperative positioning information may be fused with data acquired using the sensors 102a-102n and/or data generated using the signals GA-GN. The higher accuracy and/or precision of the relative position between the objects 30a-30n may reduce uncertainty, reduce a number of false positives, reduce erroneous data calculations and/or enable an improved Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) classification,” if the cooperative positioning yields a more accurate positioning result for the vehicle based on whether its superior than the single processing), and (ii) whether a number of satellites used for the positioning of the second vehicle is large or small (see at least [0024]; “The number of vehicles and/or base stations 30a-30n and/or C011llllunication satellites 40a-40n may be varied according to the design criteria of a particular implementation. The system 20 may be configured to adjust and/or self-correct for various numbers of the vehicles and/or base stations 30a-30n and/or communication satellites 40a-40n,” the number of satellites additionally effects the accuracy of positioning and therefore the ASIL classification), and
the second vehicle information generation unit dynamically alters a content of the second-vehicle information according to the classification (see at least [0122]; “Next, in the state 522, the processor 124 may enable automatic responses based on the confidence level.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the positioning system of Kawai as modified by Neubecker with the position dependent classification of Eriksson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving how an ASIL classification is determines (see at least Eriksson; [0002-0007]).
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 ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/6/26
Prosecution Insights