DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 5/22/2026.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 have been canceled.
Claims 30-35 are new claims.
Claims 30-35 have been withdrawn.
Claims 14 and 21-35 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Due to the amendment filed 5/22/2026, the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 12, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, a new combination of references has been applied in the prior art rejections below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 30-35 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 30-35 are directed to a distinct invention having separate utility such as using a mapping relationship defined by a plurality of identifiers and plurality of position information of fixed location points to determine a position of a vehicle terminal, independent of the apparatuses recited in claims 14 and 21-29, which are directed to a roadside unit coordinating communication between two vehicle terminals. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 30-35 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 14
Claim 14. A navigation apparatus, applied to a second vehicle terminal, and comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the navigation apparatus to:
receive a request for first information sent from a roadside unit indicating a first vehicle terminal is requesting first information comprising both satellite-related information and reference position information of the first vehicle terminal or one of the satellite-related information and reference position information,
wherein the roadside unit sends the request in response to determining the first vehicle terminal is unable to transmit a request for the first information to the roadside unit;
send first information to the first vehicle terminal in response to receiving the request,
wherein the satellite-related information comprises at least one of a quantity of found satellites, an angle of each satellite, a frequency of each satellite, positioning time information, or satellite ephemeris information,
wherein the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal comprises at least one reference position external to the first and second vehicle terminals and one or more identifiers of the at least one reference position,
wherein the roadside unit is the source of the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal, and
wherein the reference position information is based on a reference object external to the first and second vehicle terminals and proximate to the first vehicle terminal.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites an apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of the roadside unit sends the request in response to determining the first vehicle terminal is unable to transmit a request for the first information to the roadside unit. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “request” is data indicating a request for information. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “first vehicle terminal,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is a mobile computing device, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “roadside unit” is a stationary computing device positioned near a road. No particular vehicle-related sensors or control operations are claimed. Generally recited data is merely sent in response to determining a generally recited condition. For example, this limitation encompasses human behavior using basic communication steps, such as a dispatcher determining that a driver cannot reach the dispatcher because of a malfunctioning radio, so the dispatcher tells a different driver to deliver location updates to the driver.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “roadside unit.” That is, other than reciting “roadside unit,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “roadside unit” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at collected data (i.e. first vehicle terminal and a request for the first information) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. send the request in response to determining the first vehicle terminal is unable to transmit a request for the first information to the roadside unit). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “roadside unit”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “roadside unit” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The mere nominal recitation of a “first vehicle terminal” and “roadside unit” as being objects upon which generally recited data is transferred does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of
receive a request for first information sent from a roadside unit indicating a first vehicle terminal is requesting first information comprising both satellite-related information and reference position information of the first vehicle terminal or one of the satellite-related information and reference position information,
send first information to the first vehicle terminal in response to receiving the request,
wherein the satellite-related information comprises at least one of a quantity of found satellites, an angle of each satellite, a frequency of each satellite, positioning time information, or satellite ephemeris information,
wherein the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal comprises at least one reference position external to the first and second vehicle terminals and one or more identifiers of the at least one reference position,
wherein the roadside unit is the source of the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal, and
wherein the reference position information is based on a reference object external to the first and second vehicle terminals and proximate to the first vehicle terminal.
The “receive” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of a request for first information indicating a first vehicle terminal is requesting first information) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further limiting the “first information” to be “satellite-related information” and/or “reference position information” merely describes the generally recited data using other generally recited data and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
The “first vehicle terminal” and “roadside unit” are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation as merely mobile and fixed computing devices, respectively, and contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., receive a request sent from the roadside unit indicating the first vehicle is requesting data); therefore, the “first vehicle terminal” and “roadside unit” limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
The “send” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general sending of first information to the first vehicle terminal upon a generally recited condition) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further limiting the “satellite-related information” to include at least one of a quantity of found satellites, an angle of each satellite, a frequency of each satellite, positioning time information, or satellite ephemeris information represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the satellite-related information to include at least one of a quantity of found satellites, an angle of each satellite, a frequency of each satellite, positioning time information, or satellite ephemeris information does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Further limiting the “reference position information” to include at least one reference position external to the first and second vehicle terminals and one or more identifiers of the at least one reference position represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the reference position information to include at least one reference position external to the first and second vehicle terminals and one or more identifiers of the at least one reference position does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Further limiting the “roadside unit” to be the source of the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the roadside unit to be the source of the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Further limiting the “reference position information” to be based on a reference object external to the first and second vehicle terminals and proximate to the first vehicle terminal represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the reference position information to be based on a reference object external to the first and second vehicle terminals and proximate to the first vehicle terminal does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the already identified abstract exception using generic computer components (i.e. “at least one processor” and “at least one memory”) when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receive and send steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the satellite-related information and navigation system as commonly used in autonomous vehicles, and the specification does not provide any indication that the roadside unit and vehicle terminals are anything than conventionally known in the art. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 21-24
Dependent claims 21-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites the additional elements of the reference object comprises at least one of a high-precision map, a two-dimensional code, or a road sign. Further limiting the “reference object” to include at least one of a high-precision map, a two-dimensional code, or a road sign represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the reference object to include at least one of a high-precision map, a two-dimensional code, or a road sign does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 22 recites the additional elements of the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal comprises at least one of a longitude coordinate, a latitude coordinate, an altitude coordinate, a pseudo-range observation value, or a carrier phase observation value. Further limiting the “reference position information” to include at least one of a longitude coordinate, a latitude coordinate, an altitude coordinate, a pseudo-range observation value, or a carrier phase observation value represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the reference position information to include at least one of a longitude coordinate, a latitude coordinate, an altitude coordinate, a pseudo-range observation value, or a carrier phase observation value does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 23 recites the additional elements of the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the navigation apparatus to send the first information to the first vehicle terminal in response to a notification transmitted by the roadside unit. The “send” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general sending the first information to the first vehicle terminal upon a generally recited condition) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 24 recites the additional elements of the second vehicle terminal is a vehicle terminal outside a garage exit. Further limiting the “second vehicle terminal” to be vehicle terminal outside a garage exit represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the second vehicle terminal to be vehicle terminal outside a garage exit does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claims 21-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 14.
Claims 14 and 21-24 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Key to Interpreting the Prior Art Rejections
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
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.
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.
Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0137595 A1), hereinafter Choi, in view of Peake et al. (US 2018/0095177 A1), hereinafter Peake, and Smith (US 2017/0055128 A1), hereinafter Smith.
Claim 25
Choi discloses the claimed navigation apparatus (i.e. vehicle control device 100, depicted in Figure 1), applied to a first vehicle terminal, and comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program instructions (see ¶0077, regarding that vehicle control device 100 includes controller 180 and memory 170, defined as storing application programs executed by controller 180 to perform an operation for vehicle control device 100 in ¶0084; ¶0089, regarding that the embodiments are implemented through vehicle control device 100) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the navigation apparatus to:
receive reference position information of the first vehicle terminal from a roadside unit (see ¶0159-0164, with respect to step 330 of Figure 3, regarding that location information from an external infrastructure is received by the vehicle control device, defined as including a fixed terminal referred to as a “device,” e.g., a traffic sign/road side unit (RSU), as described in ¶0167-0169),
wherein the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal comprises at least one reference position external to the first and second vehicle terminals and one or more identifiers of the at least one reference position (see ¶0223, regarding that location information received from an external infrastructure includes information such as a sender ID and location; ¶0174, regarding location information of a plurality of external infrastructures may be received from each of the external infrastructures),
wherein the roadside unit is the source of the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal (see ¶0159-0164, with respect to step 330 of Figure 3, regarding that location information from an external infrastructure is received by the vehicle control device, defined as including a fixed terminal referred to as a “device,” e.g., a traffic sign/road side unit (RSU), as described in ¶0167-0169; ¶0178, regarding that location information of the external infrastructure located closest to the vehicle is used when it is impossible to obtain the location information of the vehicle),
determine a reference position in the at least one reference position included in the reference position information based on a reference object external to the first and second vehicle terminals (see ¶0174, regarding the vehicle control device selects any one of the external infrastructures based on distances between the vehicle and each of the external infrastructure and sets the current location of the vehicle using the location information of the selected infrastructure; ¶0209-0212, with respect to the example in Figure 6B, depicting the selected external infrastructure (fixed device) as external to other external infrastructures (terminal/vehicles));
determine a position of the first vehicle terminal based on a position of the determined reference position (see ¶0170, with respect to step 350 of Figure 3, regarding that the vehicle control device sets a current location of the vehicle using the location information of the external infrastructure transmitted from the external infrastructure; ¶0209-0212, with respect to the example depicted in Figure 6B, regarding that the vehicle control device sets a current location of the vehicle using the location information of the selected external infrastructure (fixed device)); and
navigate based on the position of the first vehicle terminal (see ¶0142, regarding that the vehicle is controlled to perform autonomous driving based on location-based information). The autonomous driving function of the vehicle clearly indicates that the current location of the vehicle set using the location information of the external infrastructure is used in navigation.
Choi discloses that the vehicle control device broadcasts a location information request or searches for an external infrastructure using a sensor (see ¶0206) and thus does not disclose that the “reference position information” is received based on the roadside unit detecting the first vehicle terminal. However, modifying the method in which location information of the external infrastructure (i.e. “reference position information”) is communicated in Choi would be obvious, in light of Peake.
Specifically, Peake teaches the known technique of receiving convergence data, defined as a position fix (similar to the reference position information of the first vehicle of Choi) in ¶0019, from a convergence data sharing system 110 that can be installed at various locations where traffic is likely to pass, such as highway on-ramps, entrances/exits of tunnels, bridges, parking structures, fire stations, etc. (similar to the roadside unit of Choi) based on convergence data sharing system 110 detecting a passing vehicle (similar to the first vehicle terminal of Choi) (see ¶0033, regarding that when a passing vehicle is detected, convergence data sharing system 110 provides the convergence data to the GNSS receiver of that vehicle; ¶0024).
Since the systems of Choi and Peake are directed to the same purpose, i.e. receiving a reference position external to a vehicle from a roadside unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of receive reference position information of the first vehicle terminal from a roadside unit of Choi to be based on the roadside unit detecting the first vehicle terminal, in light of Peake, with the predictable result of quickly achieving accurate positioning in a passing vehicle (¶0024 of Peake).
Choi further discloses that the navigation apparatus is further caused to receive satellite-related information from a second vehicle terminal (see ¶0159-0165, regarding that the location information of an external infrastructure is received from the external infrastructure, defined as including “terminals” such as another vehicle provided with a vehicle control device, where the vehicle control device includes location information module 115 defined as a GPS module to obtain a position of the vehicle control device using a signal sent from satellites, as described in ¶0094 and ¶0108, with respect to Figure 1). Choi discloses the “satellite-related information” as being received independent of other external infrastructures that include fixed devices, such as road side units (see ¶0174; ¶0162) and thus does not further disclose that the “satellite-related information” is received in response to a notification transmitted by the roadside unit to the second vehicle terminal. Further, Choi does not explicitly disclose that the satellite-related information comprises at least one of a quantity of found satellites, an angle of each satellite, a frequency of each satellite, positioning time information, or satellite ephemeris information. However, modifying the method in which location information of the external infrastructure associated with the mobile terminal (i.e. “satellite-related information”) is communicated in Choi would be obvious, in light of Smith.
Specifically, Smith teaches the known technique of receiving location information (similar to the satellite-related information of Choi) from fixed infrastructure device FID(C) 2307, which may alternatively be a mobile wireless device (see ¶0024), implemented as a vehicle, as depicted in Figures 19A-B (similar to the second vehicle terminal of Choi) in response to a notification transmitted by fixed infrastructure device FID(B) 2305 (similar to the roadside unit of Choi) to FID(C) 2307 (see ¶0301, with respect to Figure 23, regarding that in response to location information request message 2329 which indicates the requesting FID(A) 2101, FID(C) 2307 provides ranging and bearing and location information directly to FID(A) 2101). Smith further teaches the location information as including positioning time information (see ¶0290).
Since the systems of Choi and Smith are directed to the same purpose, i.e. receiving satellite-related information from a mobile terminal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of receive satellite-related information from a second vehicle terminal of Choi be in response to a notification transmitted by the roadside unit to the second vehicle terminal, wherein the satellite-related information comprises at least one of a quantity of found satellites, an angle of each satellite, a frequency of each satellite, positioning time information, or satellite ephemeris information, in light of Smith, with the predictable result of directly providing location information to a requesting device (¶0301 of Smith) using a device that has not previously performed a discovery process with the requesting device (¶0295 of Smith) in circumstances when a device that has already performed a discovery process with the requesting device (¶0295 of Smith) cannot provide sufficient location information to the requesting device (¶0299 of Smith).
Claim 26
As discussed in the rejection of claim 25, Peake further teaches the known technique in which convergence data sharing system 110 that can be installed at various locations where traffic is likely to pass, such as highway on-ramps, entrances/exits of tunnels, bridges, parking structures, fire stations, etc. (similar to the roadside unit of Choi) transmits convergence data, defined as a position fix (similar to the reference position information of Choi) in ¶0019, to a passing vehicle (similar to the first vehicle terminal of Choi) upon detecting the passing vehicle (see ¶0033, regarding that when a passing vehicle is detected, convergence data sharing system 110 provides the convergence data to the GNSS receiver of that vehicle; ¶0024). Peake performs this communication without receiving a request for the convergence data from the passing vehicle, as described in ¶0024 and ¶0033.
Claim 27
Smith further teaches that the notification transmitted by fixed infrastructure device FID(B) 2305 (similar to the roadside unit of Choi) instructs fixed infrastructure device FID(C) 2307, which may alternatively be a mobile wireless device (see ¶0024), implemented as a vehicle, as depicted in Figures 19A-B (similar to the second vehicle terminal of Choi) to transmit the location information (similar to the satellite-related information of Choi) to fixed infrastructure device FID(A) 2101, which may alternatively be a mobile wireless device (see ¶0024), implemented as a vehicle, as depicted in Figures 19A-B (similar to the first vehicle terminal of Choi) (see ¶0301, with respect to Figure 23, regarding that in response to location information request message 2329 which indicates the requesting FID(A) 2101, FID(C) 2307 provides ranging and bearing and location information directly to FID(A) 2101).
Claim 28
Choi further discloses that the reference object comprises a road sign (see ¶0167, regarding the external infrastructure device may be a traffic sign). Choi does not explicitly disclose the location of the traffic sign as being proximate to a garage exit. However, an environment in which the “road sign” is placed does not influence its claimed use; therefore, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to modify the traffic sign of Choi to be “proximate to a garage exit,” in light of Peake.
Specifically, Peake teaches known locations for a similar “reference object,” described as installed at location where traffic is likely to pass, such as entrances/exits of parking structures (see ¶0033), i.e. proximate to a garage.
Since the systems of Choi and Peake are directed to the same purpose, i.e. receiving a reference position external to a vehicle from a roadside unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the road sign of Choi to be proximate to a garage, in light of Peake, with the predictable result of being “obvious to try,” such that there are a finite number of known ways to position a road sign, and a person having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known ways with reasonable expectation of success, e.g., placing a traffic sign near an entrance/exit of a parking structure, as described in ¶0033 of Peake. See MPEP 2143(E).
Claim 29
Choi further discloses determining the position of the first vehicle terminal comprises correcting position information of the first vehicle terminal after restoration of a satellite searching capability based on the satellite-related information received from the second vehicle terminal (see ¶0186, regarding that in case the location information of the vehicle can be obtained, the current location of the vehicle is set using both the location information of the vehicle and the location information of the external infrastructure, defined as including another vehicle provided with a vehicle control device in ¶0165; ¶0094, regarding the location information of the vehicle is obtained using a GPS module).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 21-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Per MPEP 2106.05(I), the novelty of any elements or steps in a process or even the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
The closest prior art of record, Choi, Peake, and Smith, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed navigation apparatus, applied to a second vehicle terminal, and comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the navigation apparatus to:
receive a request for first information sent from a roadside unit indicating a first vehicle terminal is requesting first information comprising both satellite-related information and reference position information of the first vehicle terminal or one of the satellite-related information and reference position information,
wherein the roadside unit sends the request in response to determining the first vehicle terminal is unable to transmit a request for the first information to the roadside unit;
send first information to the first vehicle terminal in response to receiving the request,
wherein the satellite-related information comprises at least one of a quantity of found satellites, an angle of each satellite, a frequency of each satellite, positioning time information, or satellite ephemeris information,
wherein the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal comprises at least one reference position external to the first and second vehicle terminals and one or more identifiers of the at least one reference position,
wherein the roadside unit is the source of the reference position information of the first vehicle terminal, and
wherein the reference position information is based on a reference object external to the first and second vehicle terminals and proximate to the first vehicle terminal.
Specifically, the combination of Choi and Smith teaches receiving a request for first information sent from a roadside unit indicating a first vehicle terminal is requesting first information comprising satellite-related information, and sending first information to the first vehicle terminal in response to receiving the request, wherein the satellite-related information comprises positioning time information, as discussed in detail in the rejection of claim 25. However, Smith does not perform any determination that a device (e.g., FID(A)) cannot transmit a request to another device (e.g., FID(C)). Requests are merely relayed in Smith, and thus, Smith does not further teach that “the roadside unit sends the request in response to determining the first vehicle terminal is unable to transmit a request for the first information to the roadside unit,” as claimed. No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Grewe et al. (DE 102014216276 A1) teaches a vehicle positioning system that uses radar signals received from radar beacons positioned outside of a garage, in order to rapidly determine location (see ¶0031 of translation), Xiao et al. (US 2022/0279310 A1) teaches calculating location information of a first terminal using positioning assistance data transferred by a second terminal (see abstract), and Kim (US 2017/0242132 A1) teaches receiving satellite information from another device for correcting the current location when the number of satellites available for communication is less than a threshold (see abstract), and Rabiee et al. (“Chapter 11: Vehicle Localization in GNSS-Denied Environments,” 2019, Book: Cooperative Localization and Navigation) teaches cooperative information exchange between vehicles and RSUs (see section 11.3.1, with respect to Figure 11.18).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights