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, filed 11/3/2025, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The specification objection is withdrawn.
The claim objections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are not withdrawn.
Applicant argues the following on page 9:
PNG
media_image1.png
224
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The independent claims recite additional elements such as a vehicle, control circuity, a first sensor, and a second sensor. These are generic computing components as they are conventionally found in manufactured vehicles. The invocation of generic computing components to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant argues the following on page 9:
PNG
media_image2.png
182
943
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The abstract idea of state determination is performed on control circuitry of a vehicle. However, the vehicle and control circuitry are generic computing components such that the abstract idea is merely applied to a computer. Applying the judicial exception on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Applicant argues the following on page 9:
PNG
media_image3.png
183
887
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Claim 31 recites an abstract idea because the steps can be done in the human mind. A person is able determine state estimates and determine whether the state estimate is converging in his mind. If the state estimate is not converging, the person can choose to stop updating the state estimate in his mind.
Applicant argues the following on pages 9-10:
PNG
media_image4.png
157
896
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
46
593
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Claim 32 recites an abstract idea because a person is able to determine whether a state estimate is converging and determine that a fault has occurred based on the state estimate in his mind. Claim 33 is not a practical application because it is merely stating that the fault comprises one of a sensor fault, a transceiver fault, or a signal fault. There is no significance in this determination or is it used in some meaningful way.
The 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alters the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot.
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 30-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 30 recites “A system comprising:
control circuitry of a vehicle configured to:
receive first position information of the vehicle from a first sensor expressed in an internal coordinate frame;
receive second position information of the vehicle from a second sensor expressed in an external coordinate frame;
determine a state estimate for the vehicle based on the first position information, the second position information, and an orientation hypothesis of the vehicle in the external coordinate frame used to transform the first position information and the second position information to a common coordinate frame; and
determine whether the state estimate has converged”.
The limitation of determining a state estimate and determining whether the state estimate has converged, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “control circuitry”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the control circuitry “determining a state estimate and whether it has converged” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of determining a state estimate and whether it has converged. For example, the control circuitry “determining” in the context of these claim encompasses the user thinking about and determining a state estimate and whether it has converged. 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites receiving sensor data and determining state estimate information. The control circuitry in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving and determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a system, a vehicle, a first sensor, a second sensor, amount to generic/conventional machines. The additional elements of control circuitry to perform receiving and determining steps 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 31-39 and 41-49 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a transceiver, magnetometer, localization system, and a motion capturing system, which amount to generic/conventional machines. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 30.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of a vehicle based on the state estimate. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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.
Claims 30-34, 36, 39-44, 46, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 107850899 A, cited in the previous office action) in view of Latif (US 8082099 B2).
Regarding claim 30, Liu discloses a system comprising: control circuitry configured to (Page 20 Paragraph 4 – Page 21 Paragraph 1, Page 30 Paragraph 3 – Page 31 Paragraph 1);
receive first position information of the vehicle from a first sensor expressed in an internal coordinate frame (Page 22 Paragraph 3 – Page 24 Paragraph 2; First sensor is mapped to gyroscope or accelerometer);
receive second position information of the vehicle from a second sensor expressed in an external coordinate frame (Page 22 Paragraph 3 – Page 24 Paragraph 2; Second sensor is mapped to GPS);
determine whether the state estimate has converged (Page 37 Paragraph 2 – Page 38 Paragraph 2, Page 45 Paragraph 2).
Liu does not specifically state determine a state estimate for the vehicle based on the first position information, the second position information, and an orientation hypothesis of the vehicle in the external coordinate frame used to transform the first position information and the second position information to a common coordinate frame.
However, Latif teaches determine a state estimate for the vehicle based on the first position information, the second position information, and an orientation hypothesis of the vehicle in the external coordinate frame used to transform the first position information and the second position information to a common coordinate frame (Col. 5 Line 22 – Col. 6 Line 50; Orientation hypothesis is mapped to H (measurement connection matrix)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Liu with determining a state estimate based on the first position, second position, and an orientation hypothesis in the external coordinate frame of Latif with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a Kalman filter is able to input GPS and IMU measurements to estimate the state in the future. These sensor measurements can be converted to the global/earth coordinate frame as this provides a simple and consistent frame of reference for all sensors. One would have been motivated to combine Liu with Latif as this achieves estimating the position and velocity for navigation of a vehicle. As stated in Latif, “The Kalman filter then produces a combined position approximation and a velocity approximation which at step 76 are stored in the memory 24 as the present position and velocity of the aircraft that will be used thereafter for navigation purposes” (Col. 6 Line 41 – Col. 6 Line 50).
Regarding claim 31, Liu further discloses the control circuitry is further configured to, in response to the state estimate not converging, abort updating the state estimate (Page 37 Paragraph 2 – Page 39 Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 32, Liu further discloses the control circuitry is further configured to, in response to the state estimate not converging, determine a fault has occurred (Page 5 Paragraph 4 – Page 6 Paragraph 1, Page 45 Paragraph 2, Claim 32).
Regarding claim 33, Liu further discloses the fault comprises one of a sensor fault, a transceiver fault, or a signal fault (Page 45 Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 34, Liu further discloses the fault comprises a magnetometer fault (Page 22 Paragraph 3 – Page 23 Paragraph 1, Page 45 Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 36, Liu further discloses the control circuitry is further configured to determine a plurality of state estimates for the object based on the first position information, the second position information, and a plurality of orientation hypotheses (Page 21 Paragraph 3 – Page 25 Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 39, Liu further discloses the second sensor comprises a localization system or a motion capturing system (Page 22 Paragraph 3 – Page 24 Paragraph 2).
Regarding claims 40-44, 46, and 49, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 30-34, 36, and 39. The method taught/disclosed in claims 40-44, 46, and 49 can be clearly performed with the system of claims 30-34, 36, and 39. Therefore, claims 40-44, 46, and 49 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 35 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Latif, as applied to claims 30 and 40, and further in view of Zhong (CN 106875374 A, cited in the previous office action).
Regarding claim 35, Liu discloses determining whether the state estimate has converged.
Liu does not specifically state the control circuitry is configured to determine whether the state estimate has converged by comparing a convergence criterion to a threshold.
However, Zhong, which is also in vehicle controls, teaches the control circuitry is configured to determine whether the state estimate has converged by comparing a convergence criterion to a threshold (Page 9 Paragraph 8 – Page 11 Paragraph 8 (Text file-NPL), Page 11 Paragraph 0112 (Image file-Foreign Reference)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Liu with determining whether the state estimate has converged by comparing a convergence criterion to a threshold of Zhong with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a threshold must be reached in order for the state estimate to be considered converged. A smaller threshold allows the state estimate to be more accurate. One would have been motivated to combine Liu with Zhong as this achieves obtaining a more accurate state estimate. As stated in Zhong, “when the iteration converges, finishing the calculation, obtaining a relatively accurate value of the orientation element” (Page 11 Paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 45, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 35. The method taught/disclosed in claim 45 can be clearly performed with the system of claim 35. Therefore, claim 45 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 37-38 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Latif, as applied to claims 30 and 40, and further in view of Maloney (US 20200349362 A1, cited in the previous office action).
Regarding claim 37, Liu discloses determining a plurality of state estimates.
Liu does not specifically state the control circuitry is further configured to determine a plurality of hypothesis likelihoods for the plurality of state estimates.
However, Maloney, which is also in vehicle controls, teaches the control circuitry is further configured to determine a plurality of hypothesis likelihoods for the plurality of state estimates (Paragraph 0100-0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Liu with determining a plurality of hypothesis likelihoods for the plurality of state estimates of Maloney with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that some state estimates are more likely to be closer to the actual position of the vehicle (higher likelihood), while some state estimates are further away (lower likelihood). To get a more accurate vehicle position estimate, higher likelihood estimates are used in future calculations while lower likelihood estimates are discarded. One would have been motivated to combine Liu with Maloney as this achieves a more accurate vehicle position estimate. As stated in Maloney, “the process continued only in relation to one or more geographic areas (and associated object datasets) with which a relatively high likelihood of the subject being in that associated area is determined. Areas deemed unlikely to include the subject position may be discarded from consideration” (Paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 38, Liu discloses determining a plurality of state estimates.
Liu does not specifically state the control circuitry is further configured to, in response to the state estimate not converging, update the state estimate of the plurality of state estimates having a maximum hypothesis likelihood and abort updating the state estimate for a remaining one or ones of the plurality of state estimates.
However, Maloney, which is also in vehicle controls, teaches the control circuitry is further configured to, in response to the state estimate not converging, update the state estimate of the plurality of state estimates having a maximum hypothesis likelihood and abort updating the state estimate for a remaining one or ones of the plurality of state estimates (Paragraph 0100-0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Liu with updating the state estimate of the plurality of state estimates with a maximum hypothesis likelihood and abort updating a remaining one or ones of the plurality of state estimates of Maloney with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that as image data increases, the number of nodes for determining the position of a vehicle increases. It is necessary to trim state estimates with low likelihoods in order to reduce computational load. One would have been motivated to combine Liu with Maloney as this achieves feasible computation. As stated in Maloney, “It is not feasible (and may be impossible) to store detailed imagery for a large geographical area locally (e.g. on board a subject vehicle) and impossible to search such data in real time, with sufficient accuracy, to identify a location. However it is possible to store the object dataset for a large area in a semantic form, in which relevant features of the objects have been identified, in order to achieve fast position acquisition and real time positioning and navigation using computer vision” (Paragraph 0060).
Regarding claims 47-48, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 37-38. The method taught/disclosed in claims 47-48 can be clearly performed with the system of claims 37-38. Therefore, claims 47-48 are rejected under the same rationale.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669