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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 reads “a localization system”, but the localization system already has antecedent basis within claim 1 which claim 11 indirectly depends upon. This should read “the localization system”.
Claim 12 reads “a set of sensors”, but the set of sensors already has antecedent basis within claim 1 which claim 11 indirectly depends upon. This should read “the set of sensors”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
when initializing the localization system, obtaining at least one current parameter, at least one stored parameter, and a reference position of the vehicle, by the processor of the control unit, wherein the at least one current parameter is indicative of a current position state of the vehicle, wherein the at least one stored parameter is indicative of a position state of the vehicle before a shutdown of the localization system, wherein the at least one current parameter and at least one stored parameter respectively comprise trip meter data, and wherein the reference position is a position of the vehicle before the shutdown of the localization system,
using the current position state and the stored position state of the vehicle, determining, by the processor of the control unit, whether or not the vehicle has moved since the shutdown of the localization system, wherein determining comprises comparing current trip meter data included in the at least one current parameter with stored trip mater data included in the at least one stored parameter, wherein the at least one current parameter and at least one stored parameter respectively further comprises any one or more of: fuel and/or battery level, one or more identifiers of available and/or connected wireless networks, an articulation angle between the vehicle and an attached trailer, a roll and/or pitch angle of the vehicle, and steering wheel angle; and
when determining that the vehicle has not moved since the shutdown of the localization system, configuring, by the processor of the control unit, the localization system using the reference position,
wherein configuring the localization system comprises; based on a map of an area comprising the reference position, determining, by the processor of the control unit, expected area characteristics of the reference position,
obtaining, by the processor of the control unit, sensor data from the set of sensors, the sensor data being indicative of actual area characteristics of a current location of the vehicle, thereby measuring surroundings of the vehicle using the set of sensors resulting in measurements to
determine whether the measurements match the map,
evaluating, by the processor of the control unit, an accuracy of the reference position by comparing the expected area characteristics with the actual area characteristics, and
when the evaluated accuracy of the reference position fulfils a quality constraint, configuring, by the processor of the control unit, the localization system to provide positioning information based on the reference position.
The limitations (a-h) recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a control unit and processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, when a person begins to drive a vehicle, the person can determine the validity of a mental map or marked map based on various observation. The person may mentally remember an odometer reading and steering wheel angle of the vehicle or observe an odometer reading and steering wheel angle made note of on a piece of paper before the vehicle was shut down and/or since the map was last used (a). The person may further observe the current odometer reading and steering wheel angle of the vehicle (a). The person may further remember the location of their vehicle on a mental map from last time they drove the vehicle or observe a marked location on a map from when the map was last used (a). The person can then determine if there is a difference between the observed current odometer reading and steering wheel angle and the historic odometer reading and steering wheel angle respectively wherein if a difference exists, the person can mentally conclude that the vehicle has moved (b). If no difference exists, the person can mentally determine characteristics that they’d expect to see in the environment based on their remembered location and/or observed marked map location (d). The person can then observe a live camera feed from a vehicle (such as from a rear view camera or generated bird’s eye view based on camera data) of the vehicle’s surrounding (e). The person can then determine if the expected characteristics and observed characteristics match to a satisfactory degree (f-g). If the characteristics match to a satisfactory degree, the person can then mentally determine that it is safe to continue using their remembered mental map location or marked mark location for navigation (c and h). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the localization system, processor, and control unit are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. If the obtaining steps (a and e) are interpreted as receiving data rather than observing data, these steps may be considered insignificant extra pre-solution activities of mere data gathering. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept. Furthermore, the set of sensors; namely a generic camera, lidar, or radar; is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the localization system, processor, control unit, and sensors are recited at a high level of generality as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation of retrieving a current parameter, stored parameter, and reference position (a) and retrieving sensor data (e) is a WURC activity because Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the retrieval of data from memory is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). If instead the retrieval of sensor data (e) and the current parameter (a) are interpreted as receiving data over a network, these limitations are a WURC activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the reception of data over a network is a WURC function. Furthermore, the datatypes of the current and stored parameters only limit the parameters to WURC datatypes of a vehicle. Most vehicles at the time of filing came with fuel/battery indicators, and wireless network accessibility. For one example, the 2019 Chevrolet Bolt EV Owner’s Manual discloses a battery gauge (page 123 column 1), and wireless network accessibility (page 177 columns 1-2). Most vehicles at the time of filing also came with trip meters. For one example, the 2019 Chevrolet Bolt EV Owner’s Manual discloses a trip odometer (page 144 column 1). Furthermore, as shown in Weston et al. US 20230249746, sensors for roll determination (paragraph 0033 line 5), sensors for steering wheel angle determination (paragraph 0044 lines 22-24), and cameras to determine trailer articulation angle (paragraph 0033 line 11) were WURC sensors in the art at the time of filing. Sensors/indicators such as these are designed for data gathering, so use of data types from these sensors/indicators does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8-13 and 15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception which provide applying generic computer components and/or provide additional insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering.
Claims 2 and 4-6 provide further directions on the abstract idea which can be mentally performed by a person.
Claims 8-9 recite further mere data gathering.
Claim 10 further recites the generic control unit and processor as detailed above.
Claims 11 and 13 further recite the generic localization system as detailed above. These also recite a vehicle which is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea with a generic apparatus.
Claim 12 further recites the generic set of sensors as detailed above.
Claim 15 is directed toward a non-transitory computer program medium (CRM) carrying a computer program to perform the method. This is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a computer. The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein. Furthermore, the CRM is generically recited such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply a generic computer component.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalewski et al. US 98462772 B2 (hereinafter Zalewski) in view of Kojo US 20170030722 A1 (hereinafter Kojo), and Ichinokawa US 20140350847 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Zalewski teaches a method for handling a localization system in a vehicle (abstract lines 1-2 disclose a method for determining position data of a vehicle), the vehicle comprises a set of sensors mounted at the vehicle (column 3 lines 27-31 details sensors present on a vehicle), the set of sensors comprising at least one of: a camera (column 3 lines 27-31 "camera"), a lidar, or a radar, the method being performed by a control unit comprising a processor (column 3 lines 65-66 disclose a control device with memory and a processor to perform the method), the method comprising:
when initializing the localization system, obtaining at least one current parameter (column 2 lines 28-29 disclose obtaining a current ambient condition), at least one stored parameter (column 2 lines 31-32 disclose obtaining a stored ambient condition), and a reference position of the vehicle (column 2 lines 9-1 disclose obtaining a stored reference position for use as an external anchor), wherein the at least one current parameter is indicative of a current position state of the vehicle (column 2 lines 28-29 disclose that ambient conditions are indicative of the measurable features in the surrounding area), wherein the at least one stored parameter is indicative of a position state of the vehicle before a shutdown of the localization system (column 2 lines 28-29 disclose that ambient conditions are indicative of the measurable features in the surrounding area; column 1 lines 65-67 to column 2 lines 1-11 disclose that the initial data was stored before GNSS loss), and wherein the reference position is a position of the vehicle before the shutdown of the localization system (column 1 lines 65-67 to column 2 lines 1-11 disclose that the external anchor was stored before GNSS loss),
using the current position state and the stored position state of the vehicle, determining whether or not the vehicle has moved since the shutdown of the localization system (column 2 lines 42-43 discloses comparing the ambient conditions to determine a match i.e. if the vehicle has moved),
when determining that the vehicle has not moved since the shutdown of the localization system, configuring the localization system using the reference position (column 2 lines 43-45 discloses setting the vehicle position as the stored reference position if ambient conditions match), wherein the localization system comprises;
based on a map of an area comprising the reference position (column 4 lines 49-51 disclose a navigation device for displaying actual position which would include the external anchor), determining expected area characteristics of the reference position (column 2 lines 31-32 disclose a stored ambient condition of the external anchor; column 3 lines 12-13 disclose that ambient conditions comprise a portion of an image of a surrounding area),
obtaining, by the processor of the control unit, sensor data from a set of sensors (column 3 lines 26-27 disclose sensors for detecting surrounding areas to create ambient condition data), the sensor data being indicative of actual area characteristics of a current location of the vehicle (column 2 lines 28-29 disclose a current ambient condition), thereby measuring surroundings of the vehicle using the set of sensors resulting in measurements to determine whether the measurements match the map (column 5 lines 34-35 disclose comparing if conditions are the same; examiner considers this comparison utilizing the sensed ambient condition and stored condition as equivalent to comparing measurements obtained by sensors and a map),
evaluating, by the processor of the control unit, an accuracy of the reference position by comparing the expected area characteristics with the actual area characteristics (column 5 lines 34-35 disclose comparing if conditions are the same within a threshold to determine movement), and
when the evaluated accuracy of the reference position fulfils a quality constraint (column 5 lines 34-35 disclose comparing if conditions are the same within a threshold to determine movement), configuring the localization system to provide positioning information based on the reference position (column 2 lines 43-45 disclose setting the vehicle position as the stored reference position).
Zalewski does not teach that the at least one current parameter and the at least one stored parameter respectively comprise trip meter data, that determining comprises comparing current trip meter data included in the at least one current parameter with stored trip mater data included in the at least one stored parameter, and that the at least one current parameter and at least one stored parameter respectively further comprises any one or more of:
fuel and/or battery level,
one or more identifiers of available and/or connected wireless networks,
an articulation angle between the vehicle and an attached trailer,
a roll and/or pitch angle of the vehicle, and- steering wheel angle.
Ichinokawa teaches that the at least one current parameter and the at least one stored parameter respectively comprise trip meter data (paragraph 0042 discloses historic and current odometer reading values), that determining comprises comparing current trip meter data included in the at least one current parameter with stored trip mater data included in the at least one stored parameter (paragraph 0042 discloses comparing historic and current odometer reading values to determine if a vehicle has moved since vehicle's last known location was recorded), and that the at least one current parameter and at least one stored parameter respectively further comprises a steering wheel angle (Abstract discloses historic and current sensor readings are compared to determine if a vehicle has moved; paragraph 0030 discloses steering wheel position sensors can be used in data analysis; see also paragraph 0018).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Zalewski to incorporate the teachings of Ichinokawa such that the determination if a vehicle has moved since localization system shutdown of Zalewski can further comprise comparing the stored and current odometer and steering wheel angle values as taught by Ichinokawa. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to simplify movement determination by utilizing numerical variables initially.
Zalewski does not teach that the localization system is arranged to obtain positioning information of the vehicle by deriving the positioning information using sensor data obtained from the set of sensors. While this may be determined as implicit from the entire method of Zalewski (see columns 1-4), Kojo will be relied upon for this limitation.
Kojo teaches that the localization system is arranged to obtain positioning information of the vehicle by deriving the positioning information using sensor data obtained from the set of sensors (paragraphs 0005-0006 detail a conventional localization system that utilizes camera data to determine a position and movement of a vehicle in a 3D space).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Zalewski to incorporate the teachings of Kojo with a reasonable expectation of success to improve vehicle navigation in challenging environments that don't have GNSS signals.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 1 as described above. Zalewski further teaches the method further comprising:
when determining that the vehicle has moved since the shutdown of the localization system, refraining from configuring the localization system using the reference position (column 2 lines 13-16 disclose only using the external anchor for configuration if the vehicle hasn't moved).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 1 as described above. Zalewski further teaches that determining whether or not the vehicle has moved since the shutdown of the localization system, comprises determining a difference between the at least one current parameter and the at least one stored parameter (column 5 lines 34-35 disclose comparing if conditions are the same within a threshold to determine movement).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 4 as described above. Zalewski further teaches that the vehicle is determined to have moved if the difference is above at least one respective threshold (column 5 lines 34-35 disclose comparing if conditions are the same within a threshold to determine movement).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 4 as discussed in the 102 rejection section.
Zalewski does not teach that the vehicle is determined to have moved if the difference is above 0.
Ichinokawa further teaches that the vehicle is determined to have moved if the difference is above 0 (paragraph 0042 discloses if current and historic data differ at all, the vehicle is determined to have been moved; see also paragraph 0018 wherein if a speedometer does not read exactly 0, the vehicle has been determined to be moved).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Zalewski to incorporate the further teachings of Ichinokawa such that if any difference is detected between stored and current odometer values, the vehicle will be determined to have moved according to Ichinokawa. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to greatly reduce the risk of localization error caused by initializing localization utilizing a saved location on a vehicle that has its position differ at all from a saved location.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 1 as described above. Zalewski further teaches that the method further comprises:
before the shutdown of the localization system, obtaining and storing the at least one stored parameter and the reference position (column 5 lines 27-31 stored ambient condition is stored when the last known actual position is determined and stored before GNSS loss).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 1 as described above. Zalewski further teaches that the reference position is a last valid position obtained by the localization system before the shutdown of the localization system (column 5 lines 24-25 disclose that the external anchor is a last known actual position).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 1 as described above. Zalewski further teaches the control unit comprising the processor wherein the control unit is configured to, by the processor, perform the method (column 3 lines 65-66 disclose a control device with memory and a processor).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 10 as described above. Zalewski further teaches a vehicle comprising the control unit according to claim 10, and a localization system (abstract lines 1-2 disclose a method for determining position data i.e. localization system of a vehicle).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 11 as described above. Zalewski further teaches the vehicle further comprising a set of sensors for scanning areas and/or for determining position states of the vehicle (column 3 lines 26-27 disclose sensors for detecting surrounding areas).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 1 as described above. Zalewski further teaches a non-transitory computer program medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the method of claim 1 when said program code is run on a computer (column 4 lines 10-11 disclose a machine-readable storage medium containing program code for executing the method).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalewski as modified by Kojo, and Ichinokawa as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Adams et al. US 20210276577 A1 (hereinafter Adams). Adams is analogous art as it focuses on reducing localization error due to bad or no GNSS signal.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Zalewski reference teaches all of claim 11 as discussed in the 102 rejection section.
Zalewski does not teach that the vehicle is autonomous or semi-autonomous.
Adams teaches that the vehicle is autonomous or semi-autonomous (paragraph 0011 lines 1-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Zalewski to incorporate the teachings of Adams with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the additional safety autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles provide.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 1/7/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objection of record detailed in the Office Action dated 11/7/2026. These/this objection have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 point A, applicant argues that the claim is not practically a mental process without significant evidence as to why the claimed limitations cannot be performed in the mind. Instead, applicant only repeats reworded claim limitations. Examiner would like to remind the applicant that “obtaining… sensor data” and “obtaining… parameter[s]” are broadly claimed such that mere observation (a mental process) of sensor readouts or camera feeds is adequate to teach the limitation. If this is unsatisfactory, these limitations may also be considered insignificant extra pre-solution activities (see 101 rejection above). Applicant also fails to explain why localization operations cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner stresses that mental localization utilizing mental or drawn maps is a very common cognitive practice.
On pages 8-9 point B.1-B.2, applicant argues that the examiner’s rebuttal in the Office Action dated 11/7/2026 oversimplifies the applicant’s invention and that the improvement is a software improvement, not a hardware improvement. Applicant argues against this simplification utilizing the August 4th, 2025 and December 5th, 2025 Memos on 101. Examiner respectfully asserts that the simplification was utilized for rebuttal purposes and is not the pure foundation of the rejection. Regardless, examiner argues that the simplification holds true. Consider the following if/then statements:
If current and stored parameters differ,
then compare expected characteristics with actual characteristics of an area, and
if the comparison reveals the location is accurate to a quality constraint,
then provide localization based on a saved reference position.
These two if/then statements can be considered the heart of the entire invention. Examiner agrees this is a simplification, but the provided statements do not provide a specific solution that meaningfully improves the operating functionality of the utilized software. Consider the “quality constraint” required for the last if/then statement. This is generically recited such that the attempted solution to improve localization system operation is non-specific such that any amount of accuracy or inaccuracy between the current location is feasibly acceptable based on how the quality constraint is initialized/predetermined/calibrated. Further, the accuracy evaluation is also generically recited such that any feasible evaluation method between actual and expected characteristics would satisfy the claimed limitation. Due to this, the alleged improvement cannot be considered as enough to incorporate the claimed invention into a practical application in light of the August and December Memos since the proposed solution is non-specific.
On page 10 point B.3, applicant argues that the insignificant extra pre solution activity of data gathering and generic sensor components are significantly more because they are applied to the abstract idea. However, applicant does not provide specificity as to why these steps and components are significantly more than mere data gathering and generic sensors respectively. Instead, applicant merely repeats the method steps performed following the performance of data gathering. This does nothing to prove how the data gathering steps are not WURC activities. This also does nothing to prove how the generic sensor components are not actually generic. Just because data gathering and generic sensors are necessary to perform the method does not mean that they are not insignificant extra pre solution activities and generic components. For one example, while the data gathering of camera/lidar/radar data is recited as being performed following determination that the vehicle has not moved, this step can feasibly be performed during vehicle start up, during determination if the vehicle has not moved, following a delay after determining the vehicle has not moved, and so on. Additionally, the claims are apathetic about how the data is gathered. For example, as the claims are currently worded, it doesn’t matter where the sensors are directed, how long they gather data, when data is gathered (as detailed above), or how much data is gathered. Hence, this is insignificant extra pre-solution activity since the actual methodology of how data is gathered is generically recited (i.e. it is in insignificant to the abstract idea how the data is gathered). The same can be said for the sensors. Since they are generic sensors, any sensor assembly utilizing one or more of the claimed sensors (as directed in the claims) can feasibly be used for the claimed invention. The claimed method steps do not care about the sensor brand, sensor resolution, sensor position, and so on. Therefore, the sensor components cannot be considered as providing significantly more.
Since arguments against 101 are unpersuasive, the 101 rejection is maintained. For the purpose of improved clarity, the 101 rejection has been reworded as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Revol reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669