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 June 6, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 6, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has improper grammar to introduce the exclusive bus lane. It should be “an” exclusive bus lane. Appropriate action 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.
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:
In claim 1, the “communication device” in the limitation ”a communication device configured to receive driving information” invokes 112(f) as “device” is a term that does not have definite structure which receives driving information, location information, and passenger information of the vehicle.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Claim limitation “communication device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states that the claimed function of receiving driving information, location information, and passenger information of the vehicle is performed by the communication device. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the control of the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle. The use of the term communication device is not adequate structure for performing receiving driving information, location information, and passenger information of the vehicle because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term receiving driving information, location information, and passenger information of the vehicle refers to the communication device and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of receiving driving information, location information, and passenger information of the vehicle. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia et al., US 20260049824 A1 (Hereinafter, “Bhatia”) and further in view of Luo et al, WO2026081181A (Hereinafter “Luo).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Bhatia discloses a vehicle control apparatus, comprising: a communication device configured to receive driving information, location information, and passenger information of a vehicle; See [0041], “FIG. 1 illustrates components of an example environment 100 for an automated vehicle management system for occupant-count restricted road segments in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure. With reference to FIG. 1, there is shown an exemplary network environment 100. The exemplary network environment 100 may include a server or servers 110, a wireless communication network 120, a vehicle 130, including vehicle sensors 132, image capture device(s) 134, an electronic device 136, and a person count estimator 138, map data source(s) 140, and a vehicle navigator 150.”
a processor configured to: determine whether it is possible for the vehicle to drive in an exclusive bus lane based on the received driving information, the received location information, and the received passenger information; and control driving of the vehicle for the exclusive bus lane based on the received driving information, the received location information, and the received passenger information. See [0054] FIG. 2 depicts illustrative interactions between the components of the automated vehicle management system 100 to adjust vehicle navigation for occupant-count restricted road segments (i.e. exclusive bus lane) … At (1), the person count estimator 138 may determine the number of passengers in the vehicle based on the received data … by processing sensor data from the vehicle sensors 132 to identify persons in the vehicle.” And [0055], “At (2), the vehicle navigator 150 may determine the existence of an occupant-count restricted road segment along the driving route … the map data source(s) 140 may send map data, the vehicle sensors 132 may send sensor data, and the image capture devices 134 may send camera data to the vehicle navigator 150.” Also [0056], “At (3), the vehicle navigator 150 may, based on the number of passengers and the existence of an available restricted road segment, initiate routing of the vehicle utilizing the restricted road segment. Routing of the vehicle utilizing the carpool lane may be initiated in either self-driving mode, where the vehicle can self-drive into the available carpool lane … in self-driving mode, the vehicle can drive itself into the carpool lane if determined appropriate … at (4), the in-vehicle electronic device 136 can display the navigation instructions to the vehicle's occupants.”
Bhatia discloses a vehicle control apparatus that determines exclusive lane use but does not exclusively disclose exclusive “bus” lanes. However, Luo teaches bus lanes as a type of exclusive lane in [0138] + [0157] + [0172-0173].
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatia’s device with the bus lane limitations disclosed in Luo with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize a lane with much less traffic when available, see Luo [0126].
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Bhatia discloses the following limitations dependent on Claims 1 and 12:
wherein the driving information includes at least one of navigation map information, accelerometer information, or gyro sensor information. See [0051], “The map data source(s) 140 may be one or more sources of map data that contain a variety of map data used for vehicle navigation. The map data can be used to additionally determine the existence of a carpool lane along a driving route in the navigation. The map data may include traffic data, offline maps, online maps, and/or carpool lane entry requirement data. The traffic data may include real-time data indicating the level of traffic on a roadway.” And [0052], “The vehicle navigator 150 may be a system or component that can generate and provide instructions for navigation of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle navigator 150 may use map data from the map data source(s) 140 to determine a route or trajectory of the vehicle based on a starting point and an end point. The vehicle navigator 150 can receive the count of number of occupants from the vehicle 130 in order to determine a route or trajectory. The vehicle navigator 150 may additionally incorporate map data and/or sensor data to determine the existence of a carpool lane for incorporation in the determined route or trajectory.” Also Fig.5 and [0076-0080] further discloses the vehicle systems and information collection.
Claims 3-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia, in view of Luo, in further view of Hayat et al., US 20210101616 A1 (Hereinafter, “Hayat”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Bhatia discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 2 and 13:
wherein the location information includes global navigation satellite system (GNSS) location coordinates; See [0067], “the vehicle 130 may obtain information identifying a destination of the vehicle and a current location. For example, a user may input a destination for the vehicle using a navigation UI in the vehicle. The destination can be used to route the vehicle from a starting point or current location to the destination. The current location may be estimated using GPS in the vehicle 130.”
Bhatia discloses a vehicle control apparatus that determines exclusive lane use but does not exclusively disclose location error correction. However, Hayat teaches a navigation device including the following : wherein the processor is configured to: correct an error in the GNSS location coordinates to calculate precise positioning information of the vehicle. In [0197] teaches the dead reckoning method and [0222], “the vehicle may navigate based on dead reckoning in which the vehicle uses sensors to determine its ego motion and estimate its position relative to the target trajectory. Because errors may accumulate during navigation by dead reckoning, over time the position determinations relative to the target trajectory may become increasingly less accurate. The vehicle may use landmarks occurring in sparse map 800 (and their known locations) to remove the dead reckoning-induced errors in position determination … a density of 1 identified landmark every 1 km of road may be sufficient to maintain a longitudinal position determination accuracy within 1 m. Thus, not every potential landmark appearing along a road segment need be stored in sparse map 800. And [0223], “lane markings may be used for localization of the vehicle during landmark spacings. By using lane markings during landmark spacings, the accumulation of during navigation by dead reckoning may be minimized. In particular, such localization is discussed below with respect to FIG. 35.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatia’s device with the navigation accuracy limitations disclosed in Hayat with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine an accurate position of the vehicle relative to a target trajectory, see [0197].
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Bhatia discloses a vehicle control apparatus that determines exclusive lane use but does not exclusively disclose location error correction. However, Hayat teaches the following limitation: wherein the processor is configured to: map the precise positioning information to the navigation map information to calculate lane location information of a lane in which the vehicle drives. See [0349], “trained model 2730 may use and/or be trained using multiple images. For example, the movement of the vehicle, the road surface, and 3D information derived from the multiple images may all be implicitly used by the trained system. In other words, the trained system may not necessarily use such cues as explicit inputs in the localization or provide them as outputs. Rather, such features, and possibly others, may be received as inputs during the training of the model, and may be used during localization implicitly through inference when multiple images are used, but may not be explicitly provided as an input to or as an output of the trained system. And [0350], “the navigation system may project a “binary mask” of the road navigation map onto image 2800. This may include overlaying road edges, lane marks, traffic road signs, directional arrows, poles, and/or other features from the road navigational map onto image 2800. For example, the navigation system may overlay road edges 2830 and 2842, lane marks 2844 and 2846, and traffic sign 2848 onto image 2800. In some embodiments, the binary image (including the projected feature locations) may have the same dimension as image 2800. In other embodiments, the binary image may be a subsampled dimension of image 2800. The binary image may be projected onto image 2800 based on known optical and physical characteristics of the camera used to capture image 2800. For example, this may include the lens focal length, resolution, color model, compression, digital zoom, orientation, brightness, contrast, saturation, cameral make or model, or any other information that may indicate how the projected feature locations should be overlaid on the image.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatia’s device with the navigation accuracy limitations disclosed in Hayat with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine an accurate position of the vehicle relative to a target trajectory, see Hayat [0197].
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Bhatia discloses the following limitations dependent on Claims 4 and 15:
wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether there is the exclusive bus lane for the vehicle to drive, based on the lane location information. See [0051], “The map data source(s) 140 may be one or more sources of map data that contain a variety of map data used for vehicle navigation. The map data can be used to additionally determine the existence of a carpool lane along a driving route in the navigation. The map data may include traffic data, offline maps, online maps, and/or carpool lane entry requirement data. The traffic data may include real-time data indicating the level of traffic on a roadway. Offline maps may be maps accessible to the system with or without a connection to a server. Carpool lane entry requirements may include data such as opening and closing times of a carpool lane, occupant minimums for allowed entry into the carpool lane, occupant minimums based on time for allowed entry into the carpool lanes, and the like. Thus, usage of a carpool lane may change depending time. For example, the vehicle may autonomously or semi-autonomously select a carpool lane by, in part, verifying time constraint.”
Bhatia discloses a vehicle control apparatus that determines exclusive lane use but does not exclusively disclose exclusive “bus” lanes. However, Luo teaches bus lanes as a type of exclusive lane in [0138] + [0157] + [0172-0173].
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatia’s device with the bus lane limitations disclosed in Luo with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize a lane with much less traffic when available, see Luo [0126].
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Bhatia discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 5 and 16:
wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the number of passengers of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined number based on the passenger information and based on determining that there is the exclusive bus lane. See [0035], “Once the vehicle has determined a number of occupants in the vehicle, the vehicle can provide the number of occupants to a server which can determine the route or trajectory along the route of the vehicle. The server can determine a route or trajectory incorporating the number of occupants in the vehicle. For example, if there are an appropriate number of occupants in the vehicle, the server can determine a route or routes that has an available carpool lane. The server can send the routes and/or trajectory along the route to the vehicle for navigation. The vehicle therefore receives routes which take the number of occupants into account. However, this is not meant to be limiting or required. In embodiments, the vehicle can use locally stored map data and determine the number of occupants in the vehicle and a corresponding route without interacting with an outside server, where the vehicle can route itself. Alternatively, the vehicle may determine the carpool lane is available along the route provided by the server, determine there is an appropriate number of occupants in the vehicle, and therefore navigate the vehicle to the carpool lane regardless of the route provided by the server.”
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Bhatia discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 6 and 17:
wherein the passenger information includes sitting sensor information and vehicle interior image information. See [0008], “the passenger sensor data is received from inside the vehicle from at least one of one or more seat occupancy sensors, one or more seatbelt latch detectors, one or more radar sensors, or one or more interior cameras.”
Regarding Claims 8-9 and 19-20, Bhatia discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 7 and 18:
wherein the processor is configured to: control the vehicle to drive in/ avoid the exclusive bus lane, based on determining that the number of the passengers is greater than or equal to/ less than the predetermined number. See [0006], “a method performed by a processor in a vehicle. The method can include receiving passenger sensor data from the vehicle; determining, based on the passenger sensor data from inside the vehicle, a count of number of passengers in the vehicle, determining an occupant-count restricted road segment in an environment of the vehicle, and adjusting vehicle navigation of a driving route to enter the occupant-count restricted road segment based on the count.” Also Fig.4 and [0072-0075] detailing the occupant determination routine. While the prior art is affirmative at determining the exclusive lane use based on the number of occupants, it would be obvious to one in the art to use the same function for negating the actions of claims 8 and 19 to apply to claims 9 and 20.
Regarding Claim 10, Bhatia discloses a vehicle control apparatus that determines exclusive lane use but does not exclusively disclose location error correction. However, Hayat teaches the following limitation: wherein the processor is configured to: extract reference coordinates from the navigation map information; match the reference coordinates with the GNSS location coordinates; and determine whether the GNSS location coordinates are within an allowable error range. See [0189], “The local map sections of sparse map 800 may be stored with a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) key as an index to the database of sparse map 800. Thus, while computation of steering angles for navigating a host vehicle in the present system may be performed without reliance upon a GNSS position of the host vehicle, road features, or landmarks, such GNSS information may be used for retrieval of relevant local maps.“ And [0191] “Between landmarks, and therefore between determinations of vehicle position relative to a target trajectory, the vehicle may navigate based on dead reckoning in which the vehicle uses sensors to determine its ego motion and estimate its position relative to the target trajectory. Because errors may accumulate during navigation by dead reckoning, over time the position determinations relative to the target trajectory may become increasingly less accurate. The vehicle may use landmarks occurring in sparse map 800 (and their known locations) to remove the dead reckoning-induced errors in position determination. In this way, the identified landmarks included in sparse map 800 may serve as navigational anchors from which an accurate position of the vehicle relative to a target trajectory may be determined. Because a certain amount of error may be acceptable in position location, an identified landmark need not always be available to an autonomous vehicle. Rather, suitable navigation may be possible even based on landmark spacings, as noted above, of 10 meters, 20 meters, 50 meters, 100 meters, 500 meters, 1 kilometer, 2 kilometers, or more. In some embodiments, a density of 1 identified landmark every 1 km of road may be sufficient to maintain a longitudinal position determination accuracy within 1 m. Thus, not every potential landmark appearing along a road segment need be stored in sparse map 800.” And [0241], “the range scale (e.g., local scale) that may be relevant for an autonomous vehicle navigation steering application may be on the order of 50 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, 300 meters, etc. Such distances may be used, as the geometrical road model is mainly used for two purposes: planning the trajectory ahead and localizing the vehicle on the road model. In some embodiments, the planning task may use the model over a typical range of 40 meters ahead (or any other suitable distance ahead, such as 20 meters, 30 meters, 50 meters), when the control algorithm steers the vehicle according to a target point located 1.3 seconds ahead (or any other time such as 1.5 seconds, 1.7 seconds, 2 seconds, etc.). The localization task uses the road model over a typical range of 60 meters behind the car (or any other suitable distances, such as 50 meters, 100 meters, 150 meters, etc.), according to a method called “tail alignment” described in more detail in another section. The disclosed systems and methods may generate a geometrical model that has sufficient accuracy over particular range, such as 100 meters, such that a planned trajectory will not deviate by more than, for example, 30 cm from the lane center.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatia’s device with the navigation accuracy limitations disclosed in Hayat with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine an accurate position of the vehicle relative to a target trajectory, see Hayat [0197].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia, in view of Luo, in further view of Hayat, in further view of Torii et al., JPH07104847A (Hereinafter, “Torii”).
Regarding Claim 11, Bhatia discloses a vehicle control apparatus that determines exclusive lane use but does not exclusively disclose location error correction. However, Torii teaches the following limitation: wherein the processor is configured to: correct the GNSS location coordinates based on the accelerometer information and the gyro sensor information to calculate the precise positioning information, based on the GNSS location coordinates being out of the allowable error range. See JPH07104847A See [0045], “On the other hand, if the positioning accuracy of the D-GPS does not meet the set level in stepS203, the system branches off from step S203 to step S210 or later and performs autonomous driving using dead reckoning. In other words, in step S210, the vehicle's speed is set to a low speed stored in the work data storage unit 46 to minimize the cumulative error of dead reckoning caused by wheel slip, and in step S211, the amount of error in the vehicle's position is determined from the position information and path information obtained by dead reckoning. And [0046] Next, in step S212, the steering amount of the front and rear wheels is determined according to the amount of error. Then, in step 213, the front wheel steering mechanism and the rear wheel steering mechanism are driven via the hydraulic control valve 13 for front wheel steering and the hydraulic control valve 14 for rear wheel steering, respectively, and controlled to obtain the target steering angle. Then, in step S214, the current position is compared with the target position using dead reckoning, and in step S215, it is determined whether or not the target position has been reached.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bhatia’s device with the navigation accuracy limitations disclosed in Hayat with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve reliable autonomous driving control even when sufficient positioning accuracy cannot be obtained from satellites, see Torii [0008].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 20190001836 A1 by Payne et al.
WIPO Publication WO 2026081181 A1 by Zuo et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights