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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 further limiting amendments made to the claims, changing the scope of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200388073 A1, filed December 18th, 2019, hereinafter “Mall”, in view of US 20220024504 A1, with an earliest priority date of November 30th, 2018, hereinafter “Batchelor”, further in view of US 20170270790 A1, filed May 13th, 2016, hereinafter “Neiger”.
Regarding claim 1, Mall teaches A method performed by a vehicle location system. See at least [0052]-[0053] and figure 6.
the method comprising: displaying on a client device, by one or more processors, a map representative of a ride system comprising one or more graphical elements indicating a passenger vehicle and a ride path. See at least [0026], wherein a user interface includes a display unit 64 (such as the screen of a personal computing device) which displays a virtual model 62. See at least [0028]-[0030] and figure 2, wherein the virtual model 62 is a representation of a ride system and includes graphical elements representing the ride’s vehicles and track.
wherein the map provides a visual indication of a current ride location of the passenger vehicle as the passenger vehicle moves along the ride system. See at least [0028], [0036]-[0037], and figure 2, wherein the display unit 64 provides a visual indication 80 representing the actual position of the ride vehicle in the ride system. See at least [0026] and figure 5, wherein display unit 64 is part of user interface 17, which provides an application for amusement park personnel to monitor the amusement park attraction.
executing, by one or more processors, a model to simulate a movement of the passenger vehicle along the ride path of the ride system. See at least [0028]-[0029] and figure 2, wherein a virtual model 62 is executed to simulate movement of ride vehicles along a ride path of a ride system.
updating, by the one or more processors, display of the map on the client device to indicate that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is the first ride location. See at least [0037] and figure 2, wherein a display unit 64 displays a map of the ride system to indicate a detected position of the ride vehicle.
receiving, by the one or more processors, first sensor data generated by a first sensor device located at a second ride location of the ride system, wherein the first sensor data indicates that the passenger vehicle has been detected at the second ride location. See at least [0024], [0036]-[0037], [0057], and figure 1, wherein sensors 52 are located at various locations of the ride system, and the sensors detect the ride vehicle as it passes and updates position information of the ride vehicle.
providing, by the one or more processors, the first sensor data as an input to the model to update the current ride location to the second ride location. See at least [0036]-[0037] and figure 2, wherein the detected position of the ride vehicle is provided to the virtual model.
and updating, by the one or more processors, based on the first sensor data, display of the map on the client device to indicate that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is the second ride location. See at least [0036]-[0037] and figure 2, wherein the virtual model comprising the updated position information of the vehicle is used to update the map application, so the virtual model reflects the current position of the ride vehicle.
and updating, by the one or more processors, based on second sensor data generated by a second sensor device at a third ride location different from the second ride location, the display of the current ride location on the client device to be at the third ride location on the map. See at least [0024], [0036]-[0037], [0057], and figure 1, wherein sensors 52 are located at various locations of the ride system, and the sensors detect the ride vehicle as it passes and updates position information of the ride vehicle. See at least [0036] and claim 18, wherein the displayed ride location is based on a detected position of the ride vehicle. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the inclusion of the term “based on at least one of executing the model or…” indicates that embodiments that solely rely on updated sensor data to update the display of the current ride location read on Applicant’s claimed invention.
Mall remains silent on determining, by the one or more processors and using one or more parameters of the passenger vehicle, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a first ride location of the ride system. Mall additionally remains silent on updating, based on executing the model, the display to the third ride location different from the first ride location in response to lapsing of a configurable time interval.
Batchelor teaches determining, by the one or more processors and using one or more parameters of the passenger vehicle, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a first ride location of the ride system. See at least [0097], [0160], figure 5, and figure 8, step S3, wherein a prediction step 30 is performed by executing state predictor 35 to estimate a position of the vehicle.
updating, based on executing the model, the current location of the vehicle to be at a third location different from the first location. See at least [0100]-[0102] and figure 5, wherein prediction step 30 is repeated and the model is executed to generate a new, updated position of the vehicle if no second sensor data is available.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s technique of executing a model to determine a first location of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Neiger teaches in response to lapsing of a configurable time interval. See at least [0109], [0112], and [0172]-[0173], wherein, after a configurable period of time (t) lapses from when a vehicle location record was last received, the previous location data is discarded, and the vehicle’s movement is estimated without the location data. In combination with Batchelor’s teaching, discussed above, of executing a model to estimate a position of the vehicle when no sensor data is available, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mall with Neiger’s technique of discarding location data from use in response to lapsing of a configurable time interval. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robust, real-time accurate estimated arrival times for a transit vehicle, as recognized by Neiger (see at least [0002]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein executing the model comprises: using an engine to simulate the movement of the passenger vehicle along the ride path of the ride system. See at least [0029], [0037], and [0053]-[0054], wherein a computer is used to execute virtual model 62 to simulate and render movement of ride vehicles along a track of the ride system.
Mall remains silent on physics.
Batchelor teaches physics. See at least [0019], [0083]-[0084], [0110]-[0112], [0161], and figure 6, wherein INS 47 is a system that simulates movement of the vehicle 10 along a track based on physics calculations.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s physics-based model. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and Mall remains silent on wherein determining that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is the first ride location comprises: providing, by the one or more processors, as an input to the model, last known location information regarding the passenger vehicle and vehicle information regarding the passenger vehicle, wherein the last known location information identifies a last known ride location of the passenger vehicle, and the vehicle information identifies one or more of a mass of the passenger vehicle, a weight of the passenger vehicle, or a velocity of the passenger vehicle.
Batchelor teaches providing, by the one or more processors, as an input to the model, last known location information regarding the passenger vehicle and vehicle information regarding the passenger vehicle, wherein the last known location information identifies a last known ride location of the passenger vehicle, and the vehicle information identifies one or more of a mass of the passenger vehicle, a weight of the passenger vehicle, or a velocity of the passenger vehicle. See at least [0097] and figure 5, wherein the model 35 receives, as input, the last calculated position information of the vehicle, and IMU measurement data. See at least [0110], [0118] and figure 6, wherein the IMU measurement data includes a velocity of the IMU. Since the IMU is mounted to the vehicle, the velocity of the IMU is equivalent to the velocity of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s technique of providing last location information and vehicle information as model inputs, and obtaining model data regarding the vehicle’s position as output. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein updating display of the map based on the first sensor data comprises: obtaining, by the one or more processors, as an output of the model, model data indicating that the current ride location is the first ride location, wherein the model data is generated, by the model, based on the first sensor data; and updating display of the map on the client device using the model data. See at least [0036]-[0038], wherein the virtual model 62 generates model data indicating the current ride location based on received sensor data. The map application is updated using the virtual model 62, to ensure that the displayed position indicator correctly reflects the calculated position of the ride vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the first sensor device and the second sensor device are comprised in a plurality of sensor devices located at different ride locations of the ride system. See at least [0024] and figure 1, wherein the sensor data is received from a sensor 52 of a plurality of sensor devices 52 located at different positions along the ride track of the amusement park attraction.
Mall remains silent on and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, whether third sensor data, from a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices, has been received; determining, by the one or more processors, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data based on determining that the third sensor data has not been received; and determining, by the one or more processors, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a fourth ride location of the ride system based on determining that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data.
Batchelor teaches and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, whether third sensor data, from a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices, has been received. See at least [0097]-[0100] and figure 5, wherein after prediction step 30 is completed, the system determines if third sensor data has been received from a non-IMU sensor. Additionally, see at least [0072] and [0138], wherein the non-IMU sensor comprises balise reader sensors which use balises installed along the tracks of the transport network to detect a position of the vehicle.
determining, by the one or more processors, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data based on determining that the third sensor data has not been received. See at least [0100] and figure 5, wherein if the third sensor data has not been received, the current location of the vehicle is estimated without the third sensor data.
and determining, by the one or more processors, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a fourth ride location of the ride system based on determining that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data. See at least [0100]-[0102] and figure 5, wherein, based on the absence of third sensor data, the current location of the vehicle is estimated by performing estimation step 30 again to determine a new position estimate.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s technique of determining whether second sensor data has been received from a second sensor, and determining the current location of the vehicle as a new location without using the second sensor data when the second sensor data is absent. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Mall teaches A vehicle location system, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories. See at least [0052]-[0053] and figure 6.
configured to: display a map on a client device, the map being representative of a ride system comprising one or more graphical elements indicating a passenger vehicle and a ride path. See at least [0026], wherein a user interface includes a display unit 64 (such as the screen of a personal computing device) which displays a virtual model 62. See at least [0028]-[0030] and figure 2, wherein the virtual model 62 is a representation of a ride system and includes graphical elements representing the ride’s vehicles and track.
wherein the map provides a visual indication of a current ride location of the passenger vehicle as the passenger vehicle moves along the ride system. See at least [0028], [0036]-[0037], and figure 2, wherein the display unit 64 provides a visual indication 80 representing the actual position of the ride vehicle in the ride system. See at least [0026] and figure 5, wherein display unit 64 is part of user interface 17, which provides an application for amusement park personnel to monitor the amusement park attraction.
execute a model to simulate a movement of the passenger vehicle along the ride path of the ride system. See at least [0028]-[0029] and figure 2, wherein a virtual model 62 is executed to simulate movement of ride vehicles along a ride path of a ride system.
update display of the map on the client device to indicate that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is the first ride location. See at least [0037] and figure 2, wherein a display unit 64 displays a map of the ride system to indicate a detected position of the ride vehicle.
receive first sensor data generated by a first sensor device located at a second ride location of the ride system, wherein the first sensor data indicates that the passenger vehicle has been detected at the second ride location. See at least [0024], [0036]-[0037], [0057], and figure 1, wherein sensors 52 are located at various locations of the ride system, and the sensors detect the ride vehicle as it passes and updates position information of the ride vehicle.
provide the first sensor data as an input to the model to update the current ride location to the second ride location. See at least [0036]-[0037] and figure 2, wherein the detected position of the ride vehicle is provided to the virtual model.
update, based on the first sensor data, display of the map on the client device to indicate that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is the second ride location. See at least [0036]-[0037] and figure 2, wherein the virtual model comprising the updated position information of the vehicle is used to update the map application, so the virtual model reflects the current position of the ride vehicle.
and update, based on second sensor data generated by a second sensor device at a third ride location different from the second ride location, the display of the current ride location on the client device to be at the third ride location on the map. See at least [0024], [0036]-[0037], [0057], and figure 1, wherein sensors 52 are located at various locations of the ride system, and the sensors detect the ride vehicle as it passes and updates position information of the ride vehicle. See at least [0036] and claim 18, wherein the displayed ride location is based on a detected position of the ride vehicle. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the inclusion of the term “based on at least one of executing the model or…” indicates that embodiments that solely rely on updated sensor data to update the display of the current ride location read on Applicant’s claimed invention.
Mall remains silent on determine, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a first ride location of the ride system. Mall additionally remains silent on updating, based on executing the model, the display to the third ride location different from the first ride location in response to lapsing of a configurable time interval.
Batchelor teaches determine, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a first ride location of the ride system. See at least [0097], [0160], figure 5, and figure 8, step S3, wherein a prediction step 30 is performed by executing state predictor 35 to estimate a position of the vehicle.
updating, based on executing the model, the current location of the vehicle to be at a third location different from the first location. See at least [0100]-[0102] and figure 5, wherein prediction step 30 is repeated and the model is executed to generate a new, updated position of the vehicle if no second sensor data is available.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s technique of executing a model to determine a first location of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Neiger teaches in response to lapsing of a configurable time interval. See at least [0109], [0112], and [0172]-[0173], wherein, after a configurable period of time (t) lapses from when a vehicle location record was last received, the previous location data is discarded, and the vehicle’s movement is estimated without the location data. In combination with Batchelor’s teaching, discussed above, of executing a model to estimate a position of the vehicle when no sensor data is available, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mall with Neiger’s technique of discarding location data from use in response to lapsing of a configurable time interval. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robust, real-time accurate estimated arrival times for a transit vehicle, as recognized by Neiger (see at least [0002]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 9, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the one or more processors, to execute the model, are configured to: use an engine to simulate the movement of the passenger vehicle along the ride path of the ride system. See at least [0029], [0037], and [0053]-[0054], wherein a computer is used to execute virtual model 62 to simulate and render movement of ride vehicles along a track of the ride system.
Mall remains silent on physics.
Batchelor teaches physics. See at least [0019], [0083]-[0084], [0110]-[0112], [0161], and figure 6, wherein INS 47 is a system that simulates movement of the vehicle 10 along a track based on physics calculations.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s physics-based model. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above, and Mall remains silent on wherein the one or more processors, to determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is the first ride location, are configured to: provide, as an input to the model, last known location information regarding the passenger vehicle and vehicle information regarding the passenger vehicle, wherein: the last known location information identifies a last ride location of the passenger vehicle, and the vehicle information identifies one or more of a mass of the passenger vehicle, a weight of the passenger vehicle, or a velocity of the passenger vehicle.
Batchelor teaches provide, as an input to the model, last known location information regarding the passenger vehicle and vehicle information regarding the passenger vehicle, wherein: the last known location information identifies a last ride location of the passenger vehicle, and the vehicle information identifies one or more of a mass of the passenger vehicle, a weight of the passenger vehicle, or a velocity of the passenger vehicle. See at least [0097] and figure 5, wherein the model 35 receives, as input, the last calculated position information of the vehicle, and IMU measurement data. See at least [0110], [0118] and figure 6, wherein the IMU measurement data includes a velocity of the IMU. Since the IMU is mounted to the vehicle, the velocity of the IMU is equivalent to the velocity of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s technique of providing last location information and vehicle information as model inputs, and obtaining model data regarding the vehicle’s position as output. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 11, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the one or more processors, to update display of the map on the client device based on the first sensor data, are configured to: obtain, as an output of the model, model data indicating that the current ride location is the first ride location, wherein the model data is generated, by the model, based on the first sensor data; and update display of the map on the client device using the model data. See at least [0036]-[0038], wherein the virtual model 62 generates model data indicating the current ride location based on received sensor data. The map application is updated using the virtual model 62, to ensure that the displayed position indicator correctly reflects the calculated position of the ride vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the first sensor device and the second sensor device are comprised in a plurality of sensor devices located at different ride locations of the ride system. See at least [0024] and figure 1, wherein the sensor data is received from a sensor 52 of a plurality of sensor devices 52 located at different positions along the ride track of the amusement park attraction.
Mall remains silent on and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether third sensor data, from a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices, has been received; determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data based on determining that the third sensor data has not been received; and determine, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a fourth ride location of the ride system based on determining that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data.
Batchelor teaches and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether third sensor data, from a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices, has been received. See at least [0097]-[0100] and figure 5, wherein after prediction step 30 is completed, the system determines if third sensor data has been received from a non-IMU sensor. Additionally, see at least [0072] and [0138], wherein the non-IMU sensor comprises balise reader sensors which use balises installed along the tracks of the transport network to detect a position of the vehicle.
determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data based on determining that the third sensor data has not been received. See at least [0100] and figure 5, wherein if the third sensor data has not been received, the current location of the vehicle is estimated without the third sensor data.
and determine, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a fourth ride location of the ride system based on determining that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data. See at least [0100]-[0102] and figure 5, wherein, based on the absence of third sensor data, the current location of the vehicle is estimated by performing estimation step 30 again to determine a new position estimate.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s technique of determining whether second sensor data has been received from a second sensor, and determining the current location of the vehicle as a new location without using the second sensor data when the second sensor data is absent. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Mall teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions. See at least [0052]-[0053] and figure 6.
that, when executed by one or more processors of a vehicle location system, cause the vehicle location system to: display a map on a client device, the map being representative of a ride system comprising one or more graphical elements indicating a passenger vehicle and a ride path. See at least [0026], wherein a user interface includes a display unit 64 (such as the screen of a personal computing device) which displays a virtual model 62. See at least [0028]-[0030] and figure 2, wherein the virtual model 62 is a representation of a ride system and includes graphical elements representing the ride’s vehicles and track.
wherein the map provides a visual indication of a current ride location of the passenger vehicle as the passenger vehicle moves along the ride system. See at least [0028], [0036]-[0037], and figure 2, wherein the display unit 64 provides a visual indication 80 representing the actual position of the ride vehicle in the ride system. See at least [0026] and figure 5, wherein display unit 64 is part of user interface 17, which provides an application for amusement park personnel to monitor the amusement park attraction.
execute a model to simulate a movement of the passenger vehicle along the ride path of the ride system. See at least [0028]-[0029] and figure 2, wherein a virtual model 62 is executed to simulate movement of ride vehicles along a ride path of a ride system.
update display of the map on the client device to indicate that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is the first ride location. See at least [0037] and figure 2, wherein a display unit 64 displays a map of the ride system to indicate a detected position of the ride vehicle.
receive first sensor data generated by a first sensor device located at a second ride location of the ride system, wherein the first sensor data indicates that the passenger vehicle has been detected at the second ride location. See at least [0024], [0036]-[0037], [0057], and figure 1, wherein sensors 52 are located at various locations of the ride system, and the sensors detect the ride vehicle as it passes and updates position information of the ride vehicle.
provide the first sensor data as an input to the model to update the current ride location to the second ride location. See at least [0036]-[0037] and figure 2, wherein the detected position of the ride vehicle is provided to the virtual model.
update, based on the first sensor data, display of the map on the client device to indicate that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is the second ride location. See at least [0036]-[0037] and figure 2, wherein the virtual model comprising the updated position information of the vehicle is used to update the map application, so the virtual model reflects the current position of the ride vehicle.
and update, based on second sensor data generated by a second sensor device at a third ride location different from the second ride location, the display of the current ride location on the client device to be at the third ride location on the map. See at least [0024], [0036]-[0037], [0057], and figure 1, wherein sensors 52 are located at various locations of the ride system, and the sensors detect the ride vehicle as it passes and updates position information of the ride vehicle. See at least [0036] and claim 18, wherein the displayed ride location is based on a detected position of the ride vehicle. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the inclusion of the term “based on at least one of executing the model or…” indicates that embodiments that solely rely on updated sensor data to update the display of the current ride location read on Applicant’s claimed invention.
Mall remains silent on determine, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a first ride location of the ride system. Mall additionally remains silent on updating, based on executing the model, the display to the third ride location different from the first ride location in response to lapsing of a configurable time interval.
Batchelor teaches determine, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a first ride location of the ride system. See at least [0097], [0160], figure 5, and figure 8, step S3, wherein a prediction step 30 is performed by executing state predictor 35 to estimate a position of the vehicle.
updating, based on executing the model, the current location of the vehicle to be at a third location different from the first location. See at least [0100]-[0102] and figure 5, wherein prediction step 30 is repeated and the model is executed to generate a new, updated position of the vehicle if no second sensor data is available.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s technique of executing a model to determine a first location of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Neiger teaches in response to lapsing of a configurable time interval. See at least [0109], [0112], and [0172]-[0173], wherein, after a configurable period of time (t) lapses from when a vehicle location record was last received, the previous location data is discarded, and the vehicle’s movement is estimated without the location data. In combination with Batchelor’s teaching, discussed above, of executing a model to estimate a position of the vehicle when no sensor data is available, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mall with Neiger’s technique of discarding location data from use in response to lapsing of a configurable time interval. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables robust, real-time accurate estimated arrival times for a transit vehicle, as recognized by Neiger (see at least [0002]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 16, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the vehicle location system to execute the model, cause the vehicle location system to: use an engine to simulate the movement of the passenger vehicle along the ride path of the ride system. See at least [0029], [0037], and [0053]-[0054], wherein a computer is used to execute virtual model 62 to simulate and render movement of ride vehicles along a track of the ride system.
Mall remains silent on physics.
Batchelor teaches physics. See at least [0019], [0083]-[0084], [0110]-[0112], [0161], and figure 6, wherein INS 47 is a system that simulates movement of the vehicle 10 along a track based on physics calculations.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s physics-based model. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above, and Mall remains silent on herein the one or more instructions, that cause the vehicle location system to determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is the first ride location, cause the vehicle location system to: provide, as an input to the model, last known location information regarding the passenger vehicle and vehicle information regarding the passenger vehicle, wherein: the last known location information identifies a last ride location of the passenger vehicle, the vehicle information identifies one or more of a mass of the passenger vehicle, a weight of the passenger vehicle, or a velocity of the passenger vehicle.
Batchelor teaches provide, as an input to the model, last known location information regarding the passenger vehicle and vehicle information regarding the passenger vehicle, wherein: the last known location information identifies a last ride location of the passenger vehicle, the vehicle information identifies one or more of a mass of the passenger vehicle, a weight of the passenger vehicle, or a velocity of the passenger vehicle. See at least [0097] and figure 5, wherein the model 35 receives, as input, the last calculated position information of the vehicle, and IMU measurement data. See at least [0110], [0118] and figure 6, wherein the IMU measurement data includes a velocity of the IMU. Since the IMU is mounted to the vehicle, the velocity of the IMU is equivalent to the velocity of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s technique of providing last location information and vehicle information as model inputs, and obtaining model data regarding the vehicle’s position as output. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 18, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the model to update display of the map on the client device based on the first sensor data, cause the model to: obtain, as an output of the model, model data indicating that the current ride location is the first ride location, wherein the model data is generated, by the model, based on the first sensor data; and update display of the map on the client device using the model data. See at least [0036]-[0038], wherein the virtual model 62 generates model data indicating the current ride location based on received sensor data. The map application is updated using the virtual model 62, to ensure that the displayed position indicator correctly reflects the calculated position of the ride vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the first sensor device and the second sensor device are comprised in a plurality of sensor devices located at different ride locations of the ride system. See at least [0024] and figure 1, wherein the sensor data is received from a sensor 52 of a plurality of sensor devices 52 located at different positions along the ride track of the amusement park attraction.
Mall remains silent on and wherein the one or more instructions further cause the vehicle location system to: determine whether third sensor data, from a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices, has been received; determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data based on determining that the third sensor data has not been received; and determine, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a fourth ride location of the ride system based on determining that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data.
Batchelor teaches and wherein the one or more instructions further cause the vehicle location system to: determine whether third sensor data, from a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices, has been received. See at least [0097]-[0100] and figure 5, wherein after prediction step 30 is completed, the system determines if third sensor data has been received from a non-IMU sensor. Additionally, see at least [0072] and [0138], wherein the non-IMU sensor comprises balise reader sensors which use balises installed along the tracks of the transport network to detect a position of the vehicle.
determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data based on determining that the third sensor data has not been received. See at least [0100] and figure 5, wherein if the third sensor data has not been received, the current location of the vehicle is estimated without the third sensor data.
and determine, based on executing the model, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is a fourth ride location of the ride system based on determining that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without the third sensor data. See at least [0100]-[0102] and figure 5, wherein, based on the absence of third sensor data, the current location of the vehicle is estimated by performing estimation step 30 again to determine a new position estimate.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mall with Batchelor’s technique of determining whether second sensor data has been received from a second sensor, and determining the current location of the vehicle as a new location without using the second sensor data when the second sensor data is absent. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables transport vehicles to reliably position themselves when traveling on portions of track that lack fixed track-side position sensors. This enables transportation systems to lower the costs needed to install and maintain fixed track-side infrastructure, as recognized by Batchelor (see at least [0002]-[0003]).
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20170057528 A1, filed August 25th, 2016, hereinafter “Green”.
Regarding claim 6, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the first sensor device and the second sensor device are comprised in a plurality of sensor devices located at different ride locations of the ride system. See at least [0024] and figure 1, wherein the sensor data is received from a sensor 52 of a plurality of sensor devices 52 located at different positions along the ride track of the amusement park attraction.
Mall remains silent on and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the passenger vehicle is located between the first sensor device and a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices; determining, by the one or more processors, that a distance between the first sensor device and the third sensor device satisfies a distance threshold; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without third sensor data generated by the third sensor device based on determining that the distance satisfies the distance threshold.
Greene teaches and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the passenger vehicle is located between the first sensor device and a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices. See at least [0021], [0044]-[0045] and figure 1, wherein the vehicle’s position is calculated to be between a first marker 120a and second marker 120b of the plurality of markers installed along a guideway.
determining, by the one or more processors, that a distance between the first sensor device and the third sensor device satisfies a distance threshold; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without third sensor data generated by the third sensor device based on determining that the distance satisfies the distance threshold. See at least [0048] and figure 1, wherein, if the distance d between first positioning device 120a and second positioning device 120b is greater than a predetermined distance, the controller calculates the vehicle’s traveled distance in the time domain. See at least [0054]-[0058] and [0075], wherein calculating the vehicle’s traveled distance in the time domain uses equation (3), which only relies on the position of a first, known, positioning device.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mall with Greene’s technique of determining the current location of the vehicle without second sensor data based on determining that a distance between a first device and second device satisfies a distance threshold. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles traveling along a guideway to accurately determine their position without needing to take into consideration wheelspin, slip, or slide conditions, as recognized by Greene (see at least [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 13, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the first sensor device and the second sensor device are comprised in a plurality of sensor devices located at different ride locations of the ride system. See at least [0024] and figure 1, wherein the sensor data is received from a sensor 52 of a plurality of sensor devices 52 located at different positions along the ride track of the amusement park attraction.
Mall remains silent on and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the passenger vehicle is located between the first sensor device and a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices; determine that a distance between the first sensor device and the third sensor device satisfies a distance threshold; and determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without third sensor data generated by the third sensor device based on determining that the distance satisfies the distance threshold.
Greene teaches and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the passenger vehicle is located between the first sensor device and a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices. See at least [0021], [0044]-[0045] and figure 1, wherein the vehicle’s position is calculated to be between a first marker 120a and second marker 120b of the plurality of markers installed along a guideway.
determine that a distance between the first sensor device and the third sensor device satisfies a distance threshold; and determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without third sensor data generated by the third sensor device based on determining that the distance satisfies the distance threshold. See at least [0048] and figure 1, wherein, if the distance d between first positioning device 120a and second positioning device 120b is greater than a predetermined distance, the controller calculates the vehicle’s traveled distance in the time domain. See at least [0054]-[0058] and [0075], wherein calculating the vehicle’s traveled distance in the time domain uses equation (3), which only relies on the position of a first, known, positioning device.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mall with Greene’s technique of determining the current location of the vehicle without second sensor data based on determining that a distance between a first device and second device satisfies a distance threshold. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles traveling along a guideway to accurately determine their position without needing to take into consideration wheelspin, slip, or slide conditions, as recognized by Greene (see at least [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 20, Mall, Batchelor, and Neiger in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Mall additionally teaches wherein the first sensor device and the second sensor device are comprised in a plurality of sensor devices located at different ride locations of the ride system. See at least [0024] and figure 1, wherein the sensor data is received from a sensor 52 of a plurality of sensor devices 52 located at different positions along the ride track of the amusement park attraction.
Mall remains silent on and wherein the one or more instructions further cause the vehicle location system to: determine that the passenger vehicle is located between the first sensor device and a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices; determine that a distance between the first sensor device and the third sensor device satisfies a distance threshold; and determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without third sensor data generated by the third sensor device based on determining that the distance satisfies the distance threshold.
Greene teaches and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the passenger vehicle is located between the first sensor device and a third sensor device of the plurality of sensor devices. See at least [0021], [0044]-[0045] and figure 1, wherein the vehicle’s position is calculated to be between a first marker 120a and second marker 120b of the plurality of markers installed along a guideway.
determine that a distance between the first sensor device and the third sensor device satisfies a distance threshold; and determine that the current ride location of the passenger vehicle is to be determined without third sensor data generated by the third sensor device based on determining that the distance satisfies the distance threshold. See at least [0048] and figure 1, wherein, if the distance d between first positioning device 120a and second positioning device 120b is greater than a predetermined distance, the controller calculates the vehicle’s traveled distance in the time domain. See at least [0054]-[0058] and [0075], wherein calculating the vehicle’s traveled distance in the time domain uses equation (3), which only relies on the position of a first, known, positioning device.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mall with Greene’s technique of determining the current location of the vehicle without second sensor data based on determining that a distance between a first device and second device satisfies a distance threshold. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles traveling along a guideway to accurately determine their position without needing to take into consideration wheelspin, slip, or slide conditions, as recognized by Greene (see at least [0085]-[0086]).
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 Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights