DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/24/2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 11 and 13; and canceled claim 21. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/24/2025 obviate said claim objections – accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 112(a), Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/24/2025 obviate said rejections – accordingly, said claim rejections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended independent claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues that independent claims 1 and 13 – amended to recite “wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on the twice-adjusted second location, thereby enabling the golfer to select a golf club based on the distance to the golf pin” and “wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises alerting a golfer of a location of the golf cart relative to a green of a golf course based on corrected measurements of the golf cart’s location,” respectively – now recite a useful and practical application, thereby applying the alleged judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Hence, the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application (Remarks, p. 9.)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations merely (1) add insignificant extra-solution activity to the identified judicial exceptions; and (2) generally link the use of the identified judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or field of use.
First, the “providing” and “alerting” steps constitute insignificant post-solution activity because they are “activities incidental to the primary process … that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.” (MPEP § 2106.05(g).) The primary process of the claims constitutes performing the mental processes of generating a location, performing identifications and correcting locations by applying spatial offsets. In this regard, the steps at issue simply represent the well-understood and conventional activity of outputting the results of a mental process to a user. Accordingly, the steps at issue do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Second, the recitation of “wherein the vehicle is a golf cart” merely indicates that the judicial exception operates in the technological environment of golf cart geolocation. The MPEP guides that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP § 2106.05(h).) Accordingly, the recitation at issue does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are maintained.
In regards to the claim rejections under 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/24/2025 have been fully considered.
As to claim 1, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As to claim 13, Applicant argues that Vollath does not describe adding position vectors which represent spatial offsets associated with geofences, but rather represent corrections arising form satellite clock errors. Applicant asserts that therefore Vollath puts forth a different concept from the sum of spatial offsets as recited in claim 13. (See Remarks, p. 19.)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Usui and Vollath arrive at the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim. To begin, Usui provides the basis of providing first and second spatial offsets associated from first and second geofences, respectively. (See at least col. 5, ll. 57–67 to col. 6, ll. 1–4 and FIG. 3; col. 6, ll. 5–12. See also at least col. 1, ll. 61–67 to col. 2, ll. 1–12. See also at least col. 7, ll. 33–52. See also FIGS. 1 and 5A.) Turning to Vollath, Vollath teaches the known concept that spatial offsets may be obtained by summing spatial offsets to arrive at a corrected measurement (To determine a current position, “a position vector of the rover station for the first instance in time is obtained,” and then “a first position difference vector is obtained” wherein “the first position difference vector is added to the position vector of the first instance in time to obtain an estimate of the current position vector.” See at least ¶¶ 148–150.). While Examiner acknowledges that Vollath does not consider geofences, the point of the teaching is to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, with a reasonable expectation of success, Usui may be modified by Vollath to yield the predictable result of summing Usui’s spatial offsets — which are associated with geofences —to arrive at a final corrected position of a vehicle.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claims 1 and 13.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a process.
Claim 13: Yes, the claim recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claims 1 and 13 are provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. A method of correcting location measurements, comprising:
generating a current location of a vehicle based at least in part on GPS (Global Positioning System) signals received by a GPS receiver of the vehicle;
identifying the current location on a virtual map; and
adjusting the current location of the vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on the map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location;
generating a second location of the vehicle based at least in part on additional GPS signals received by the GPS receiver;
adjusting the second location based on the spatial offset; and
in response to determining that the adjusted second location of the vehicle still falls within the geofence, applying the spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted using the spatial offset,
wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on the twice-adjusted second location, thereby enabling the golfer to select a golf club based on the distance to the golf pin.
13. A method of correcting location measurements, comprising:
receiving, via a user interface, a definition of a first geofence and a definition of a second geofence;
storing a representation of the first geofence at least in part using a first set of parameters provided in one or more data structures, the first set of parameters identifying a region to which the first geofence is assigned on a virtual map and a first spatial offset to be applied to location measurements falling within the first geofence;
storing a representation of the second geofence at least in part using a second set of parameters provided in one or more data structures, the second set of parameters identifying a region to which the second geofence is assigned on the virtual map and a second spatial offset to be applied to location measurements falling within the second geofence; and
directing a vehicle to correct its own measurements of location based on a sum of the first spatial offset and the second spatial offset,
wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises alerting a golfer of a location of the golf cart relative to a green of a golf course based on corrected measurements of the golf cart’s location.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitations pertaining to generating a location, performing identifications and correcting locations by applying spatial offsets are processes which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing judgments and evaluations over obtained data. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. At most, the claims as a whole provide generic computer components — i.e., a GPS receiver and a user interface — which merely carry out insignificant post-solution activity. (See below for discussion of the recited insignificant post-solution activity.) Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to either:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
receiving signals by a GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver of a vehicle
receiving, via a user interface, a definition of a geofence
Insignificant post-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity:
storing a representation of a geofence at least in part using a set of parameters provided in one or more data structures
providing the set of parameters to a vehicle
providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on the twice-adjusted second location
alerting a golfer of a location of the golf cart relative to a green of a golf course based on corrected measurements of the golf cart’s location
General link to a particular technological environment for performing a mental process
wherein the vehicle is a golf cart
Claims 2–12 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to additional mental steps:
generating one of multiple current locations,
applying corrections repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence,
define a maximum cumulative correction,
define a decay parameter,
reducing a cumulative correction based on the decay parameter in response to current locations of the vehicle falling outside of the geofence,
detecting that a second current location of the vehicle falls outside the first geofence and within a second geofence,
adjusting the second current location … by applying a second spatial offset …, the second spatial offset defined by a second set of parameters associated with the second geofence, and
adjusting the second current location based on both the first and the second correction vectors;
insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
accessing the spatial offset from the set of parameters,
receiving GPS signals by the vehicle over time;
or merely serving as a general link to a particular technological environment for performing a mental process:
directing a vehicle to correct.
Claims 14–15 depend on claim 13 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible for at least the same reasons as claims 6 and 7, respectively.
Claims 1–15 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1–15 are rejected under § 101.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims1 and 2 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui (US7346450B2; “Usui”) in view of Schmid (US20170038477A1; “Schmid”) and in view of Coffee (US6024655A; “Coffee”).
As to claim 1, Usui discloses a method of correcting location measurements, comprising:
generating a current location of a vehicle based at least in part on GPS (Global Positioning System) signals received by a GPS receiver of the vehicle (A “GPS receiver 5” is used for “measurement of vehicle position” – see at least col. 4, ll. 26–42.);
identifying the current location on a virtual map (“A vehicle current position” is identified in relation to a “road map” – see at least col. 5, ll. 12–19.); and
adjusting the current location of the vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on the map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location (“The principle of the map matching processing will be briefly described in accordance with FIGS. 7A, 7B and 7C …. The shape of each of the selected candidate roads is compared with the shape of the vehicle travel locus. A road with the highest correlativity is regarded as a road where the vehicle is traveling. The vehicle position is determined on the road. In the example of FIG. 7C, as the road b has the highest correlativity, it is considered that the vehicle is traveling on the road b, and the vehicle position is determined on the road b.” See at least col. 1, ll. 61–67 to col. 2, ll. 1–12. “When it is determined … that the vehicle current position is outside a stop area, or when it is determined at Step 40 that the vehicle current position is within a release area, map matching processing is performed (Step 50).” See at least col. 7, ll. 33–52.);
generating a second location of the vehicle based at least in part on additional GPS signals received by the GPS receiver (A “GPS receiver 5” is used for “measurement of vehicle position” – see at least col. 4, ll. 26–42. Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Usui’s invention is not limited towards only gathering one measurement, and that Usui’s GPS receiver would be capable of obtaining first, second, etc. current locations of a vehicle at respective timestamps.); and
adjusting the second location based on the spatial offset (See at least col. 1, ll. 61–67 to col. 2, ll. 1–12; and col. 7, ll. 33–52. Note: Again, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Usui’s invention is not limited to only one adjustment of a first location, but rather that Usui can be used in further iterations to apply corresponding spatial offsets to second, third, etc. detected current locations).
Usui fails to explicitly disclose: in response to determining that the adjusted second location of the vehicle still falls within the geofence, applying the spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted using the spatial offset.
Nevertheless, Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset (“As shown in FIG. 1b, a second position 2 of the vehicle is determined by fitting the first position 1 into the road from the digital map K.” ¶ 30 and FIG. 1b. “A corrected position of the vehicle is now determined in the fourth step. For this purpose, the minimum deviation of the computed distance from the real distance is determined. It is particularly preferable for this to use the method of least squares, that is the position change is sought iteratively until Min(Σ(ΔL_i)2 is reached with i>I.” ¶¶ 38-39. “It is particularly preferable for this to shift the digital map iteratively so that the deviation of the computed distance from the real distance is minimized. …. An improved corrected position 5 results from said displacement, as shown in FIG. 1e.” ¶ 40 and FIG. 1e. “Finally, in a fifth step the method can be improved still further by carrying out a second correction. …. The corrected position of the vehicle is then said last corrected position 6.” ¶ 41. Note: Summarizing, a first vehicle position is adjusted to a second vehicle position (position 2). Then, the second position is iteratively adjusted through the application of spatial offset(s) to an improved corrected position 5. Further still, the improved corrected position 5 may be further adjusted by application of spatial offset(s) to a last corrected position 6. Therefore, the vehicle’s second location is at least twice adjusted through at least the iterative process to arrive at position 5 or through the further correction to arrive at corrected position 6.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Usui to include the feature of: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset, as taught by Schmid, to arrive at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to provide “a method or a system with which a vehicle position can be determined more precisely.” (Schmid, ¶ 4.)
While Schmid does not explicitly disclose applying the spatial offset a second time – that is, applying a fixed spatial offset in an iterative manner – the claimed invention would still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the combination of Usui and Schmid. Namely, modifying Schmid’s dynamic offset to a fixed offset as required by the claim would be an obvious design choice with no unpredictable consequences as the same end result would be achieved of arriving at a final corrected location through reapplication of spatial offsets. Importantly, Applicant’s Specification does not provide criticality or technical rational to choose a fixed offset over a dynamic one; that is, the Specification’s discussion of spatial offsets does not specify that the spatial offset must be fixed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Schmid’s offset to a fixed offset to simplify computational resource consumption, which is a well-recognized design consideration in the art. Therefore, the claim limitation at issue would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
The combination of Usui and Schmid fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on the twice-adjusted second location, thereby enabling the golfer to select a golf club based on the distance to the golf pin.
Nevertheless, Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location, thereby enabling the golfer to select a golf club based on the distance to the golf pin1 (The disclosed system provides “real-time, accurate indications of distance … from the cart to significant course features—[e.g.,] … pin.” Col. 3, ll. 1-11.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Usui and Schmid to include the feature of: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location, thereby enabling the golfer to select a golf club based on the distance to the golf pin, as taught by Coffee, to arrive at the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for exploiting the advantages of the invention of Usui-Schmid and applying it to a golf context, thereby yielding a product which is desirable to golfers. (See Coffee, Abstract which discusses how map matching pertains to golfing.)
As to claim 2, Usui discloses: wherein the spatial offset has a direction toward a vehicle path identified on the map (“The principle of the map matching processing will be briefly described in accordance with FIGS. 7A, 7B and 7C …. The shape of each of the selected candidate roads is compared with the shape of the vehicle travel locus. A road with the highest correlativity is regarded as a road where the vehicle is traveling. The vehicle position is determined on the road. In the example of FIG. 7C, as the road b has the highest correlativity, it is considered that the vehicle is traveling on the road b, and the vehicle position is determined on the road b.” See at least col. 1, ll. 61–67 to col. 2, ll. 1–12. Note: In other words, map matching adjusts a vehicle’s position by a certain spatial offset in a direction towards an identified vehicle path (road) on the map.).
Claim 3 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Schmid and in view of Coffee as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Sugimoto et al. (US20180208140A1; “Sugimoto”).
As to claim 3, the combination of Usui, Schmid and Coffee fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the spatial offset is defined by a set of parameters associated with the geofence, and wherein adjusting the current location of the vehicle includes accessing the spatial offset from the set of parameters.
Nevertheless, Sugimoto teaches: wherein the spatial offset is defined by a set of parameters associated with the geofence, and wherein adjusting the current location of the vehicle includes accessing the spatial offset from the set of parameters (“The mobile communication circuit 43 can receive a correction signal Sc for correcting a GNSS signal Sg …. The correction signal Sc includes a correction value for correcting information such as the latitude, longitude, altitude, time, or the like included in the GNSS signal Sg for each positioning satellite.” See at least ¶ 47 and FIG. 5. Examiner note: The correction value analogizes to a spatial offset from a set of parameters as it is used to correct a position by a certain spatial offset to a corrected position.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location. Sugimoto teaches: accessing a spatial offset from a set of parameters associated with a geofence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui, Schmid and Coffee to include the feature of: wherein the spatial offset is defined by a set of parameters associated with the geofence, and wherein adjusting the current location of the vehicle includes accessing the spatial offset from the set of parameters, as taught by Sugimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for enhancing accuracy of positional information. (See Sugimoto, ¶ 3.)
Claims 4, 5 and 8 rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Schmid, in view of Coffee and in view of Sugimoto as applied to claim 3 – further in view of Persson et al. (US20150051827A1; “Persson”).
As to claim 4, the combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee and Sugimoto fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the spatial offset has at least two orthogonal components that form a correction vector having a magnitude and a direction.
Nevertheless, Persson teaches: wherein a spatial offset has at least two orthogonal components that form a correction vector having a magnitude and a direction (“The actual position data coordinates are retrieved from the 3D map data based upon the determined actual position. The correction vector is calculated from position difference between measured radio based navigation system position coordinates and retrieved actual position coordinates. The position given by the radio based navigation system is corrected with the correction vector.” See at least Abstract.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location. Sugimoto teaches: accessing a spatial offset from a set of parameters associated with a geofence. Persson teaches: wherein a spatial offset has at least two orthogonal components that form a correction vector having a magnitude and a direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee and Sugimoto to include the feature of: wherein a spatial offset has at least two orthogonal components that form a correction vector having a magnitude and a direction, as taught by Persson, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that a spatial offset necessarily constitutes a vector. Indeed, such is useful for accurately applying a spatial offset to a current location.
As to claim 5, the combination of Usui, Schmid and Coffee fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the current location is one of multiple current locations generated based at least in part on GPS signals received by the vehicle over time, and wherein the method further comprises applying corrections repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence.
Nevertheless, Sugimoto teaches: wherein the current location is one of multiple current locations generated based at least in part on GPS signals received by the vehicle over time, and further applying corrections repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence (“The mobile communication circuit 43 can receive a correction signal Sc for correcting a GNSS signal Sg …. The correction signal Sc includes a correction value for correcting information such as the latitude, longitude, altitude, time, or the like included in the GNSS signal Sg for each positioning satellite.” See at least ¶ 47 and FIG. 5. Examiner note: The correction value analogizes to a spatial offset from a set of parameters as it is used to correct a position by a certain spatial offset to a corrected position. Continuing, FIG. 5 illustrates that the corrections are applied repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly requiring correction (i.e., within a geofence).).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location. Sugimoto teaches: accessing a spatial offset from a set of parameters associated with a geofence; and wherein the current location is one of multiple current locations generated based at least in part on GPS signals received by the vehicle over time, and further applying corrections repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui, Schmid and Coffee to include the feature of: wherein the current location is one of multiple current locations generated based at least in part on GPS signals received by the vehicle over time, and further applying corrections repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence, as taught by Sugimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for enhancing accuracy of positional information. (See Sugimoto, ¶ 3.)
As to claim 8, Usui discloses: wherein the geofence is a first geofence, and wherein the method further comprises, in response to detecting that a second current location of the vehicle falls outside the first geofence and within a second geofence defined on the map, adjusting the second current location of the vehicle at least in part by applying a second spatial offset to the second current location, the second spatial offset defined by a second set of parameters associated with the second geofence (“When it is determined … that the vehicle current position is outside a stop area, or when it is determined at Step 40 that the vehicle current position is within a release area, map matching processing is performed (Step 50).” See at least col. 7, ll. 33–52. Examiner note: Here, an area associated with outside a stop area or within a release area may be considered first and second geofences, respectively. When the vehicle’s current position is in either of these geofences, map matching is performed is accordance with an associated requisite spacial offset pertaining to the respective geofence.).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Schmid, in view of Coffee, in view of Sugimoto and in view of Persson as applied to claim 4 – further in view of Han et al. (US20060149417A1; “Han”).
As to claim 6, the combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee, Sugimoto and Persson fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the set of parameters that define the geofence further define a maximum cumulative correction that can be applied in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence.
Nevertheless, Han teaches: defining a maximum cumulative correction that can be applied in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence (A “maximum allowable correction” may be determined for performing GPS correction – see at least ¶¶ 106 and 107.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location. Sugimoto teaches: accessing a spatial offset from a set of parameters associated with a geofence. Persson teaches: wherein a spatial offset has at least two orthogonal components that form a correction vector having a magnitude and a direction. Han teaches: defining a maximum cumulative correction that can be applied in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee, Sugimoto and Persson to include the feature of: defining a maximum cumulative correction that can be applied in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence, as taught by Han, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for increasing accuracy and robustness of a GPS-based navigation system. (See Han, ¶ 3.)
As to claim 7, Usui discloses: wherein the set of parameters associated with the geofence further defines a decay parameter, and wherein the method further comprises reducing a cumulative correction based on the decay parameter in response to current locations of the vehicle falling outside of the geofence (“A stop area can be set in an arbitrary area, and when the vehicle enters the stop area, the map matching processing is stopped.” See at least col. 2, ll. 63–67 to col. 3, ll. 1–3. Note: The vehicle being in a stop area analogizes to a vehicle being outside of a geofence because the vehicle’s location is outside of a defined area (geofence) for performing map matching. Within a stop area, a decay parameter which reduces a cumulative correction comes into play in the sense that no cumulative correction is performed when the vehicle’s location falls outside of the geofence.).
Claim 9 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Schmid, in view of Coffee, in view of Sugimoto and in view of Persson as applied to claim 8 – further in view of Vollath (US20090109090A1; “Vollath”).
As to claim 9, Usui discloses:
a first correction formed by a first spatial offset; and a second correction formed by a second spatial offset, wherein the second correction has a direction that differs from the direction of the first correction (“When it is determined … that the vehicle current position is outside a stop area, or when it is determined at Step 40 that the vehicle current position is within a release area, map matching processing is performed (Step 50).” See at least col. 7, ll. 33–52. Examiner note: Here, an area associated with outside a stop area or within a release area may be considered first and second corrections associated with first and second geofences, respectively. When the vehicle’s current position is in either of these geofences, map matching is performed is accordance with an associated requisite spacial offset pertaining to the respective geofence. The associated requisite spacial offsets will have associated directions which necessarily differs from the other given that the first and second geofences are in different areas.).
The combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee and Sugimoto fails to explicitly disclose the above in relation to first and second correction vectors.
Nevertheless, Persson teaches: a correction vector formed by a spatial offset (“The actual position data coordinates are retrieved from the 3D map data based upon the determined actual position. The correction vector is calculated from position difference between measured radio based navigation system position coordinates and retrieved actual position coordinates. The position given by the radio based navigation system is corrected with the correction vector.” See at least Abstract.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location; and first and second corrections with corresponding first and second spatial offsets, wherein the corrections have differing directions. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location. Sugimoto teaches: accessing a spatial offset from a set of parameters associated with a geofence. Persson teaches: wherein a spatial offset has at least two orthogonal components that form a correction vector having a magnitude and a direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee and Sugimoto to include the feature of: a correction vector formed by a spatial offset, as taught by Persson, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that a spatial offset necessarily constitutes a vector. Indeed, such is useful for accurately applying a spatial offset to one or more current locations.
The combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee, Sugimoto and Persson fails to explicitly disclose: wherein adjusting the second current location is based on both the first correction vector and the second correction vector.
Nevertheless, Vollath teaches: adjusting a current location based on both first and second correction vectors (To determine a current position, “a position vector of the rover station for the first instance in time is obtained,” and then “a first position difference vector is obtained” wherein “the first position difference vector is added to the position vector of the first instance in time to obtain an estimate of the current position vector.” See at least ¶¶ 148–150.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location; and first and second corrections with corresponding first and second spatial offsets, wherein the corrections have differing directions. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location. Sugimoto teaches: accessing a spatial offset from a set of parameters associated with a geofence. Persson teaches: wherein a spatial offset has at least two orthogonal components that form a correction vector having a magnitude and a direction. Vollath teaches: adjusting a current location based on both first and second correction vectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee, Sugimoto and Persson to include the feature of: adjusting a current location based on both first and second correction vectors, as taught by Vollath, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing “high accuracy positioning results.” (Vollath, ¶ 10.)
Claims 10-12 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Schmid, in view of Coffee, in view of Sugimoto and in view of Persson as applied to claim 8 – further in view of Mansour (US20130303183A1; “Mansour”).
As to claim 10, Usui discloses: wherein the second geofence encompasses a drivable region that is passable by the vehicle but does not include a defined path for the vehicle (“The stop area is set in an off road area” – see at least col. 6, ll. 51–67.).
The combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee, Sugimoto and Persson fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first geofence encompasses an undrivable region that is impassible by the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Mansour teaches: wherein a first geofence encompasses an undrivable region that is impassible by the vehicle (“The stop area is set in an off road area” ¶ 17. “If the position rectifier 206 determines that the estimated position generated by Kalman filter 204 is within a prohibited area 112, then the position rectifier 206 identifies the edge of the polygon that is nearest the estimated position, and provides information defining the edge to the Kalman filter 202. Using the edge information provided by the position rectifier 206, the Kalman filter 202 generates a new position estimate.” ¶ 30.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location; and first and second corrections with corresponding first and second spatial offsets, wherein the corrections have differing directions. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises providing a golfer with a distance to a golf pin based on a corrected location. Sugimoto teaches: accessing a spatial offset from a set of parameters associated with a geofence. Persson teaches: wherein a spatial offset has at least two orthogonal components that form a correction vector having a magnitude and a direction. Mansour teaches: wherein a first geofence encompasses an undrivable region that is impassible by the vehicle
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui, Schmid, Coffee, Sugimoto and Persson to include the feature of: wherein a first geofence encompasses an undrivable region that is impassible by the vehicle, as taught by Mansour, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing “improved positioning accuracy.” (Mansour, ¶ 3.)
As to claim 11, Usui discloses: wherein a magnitude of the second spatial offset is less than half the magnitude of the offset associated with the first geofence (“The stop area is set in an off road area such as a dry riverbed or mountainous area, an area out of road such as a parking lot or a private property, or an area having an actually-different road shape from road data due to construction of new road or the like …. For this reason, to stop map matching processing in such area, a stop area is set.” See at least col. 6., ll. 51–67 to col. 7, ll. 1–7. Examiner note: Here, a magnitude of a second spatial offset associated with the claimed second geofence is zero, which is a magnitude that is less than half than a first spatial offset associated with performing map matching.).
As to claim 12, Usui discloses: wherein the first geofence has a first offset-decay rate, wherein the second geofence has a second offset-decay rate, and wherein the first offset-decay rate is less than half the second offset-decay rate (“A stop area can be set in an arbitrary area, and when the vehicle enters the stop area, the map matching processing is stopped.” See at least col. 2, ll. 63–67 to col. 3, ll. 1–3. “When it is determined … that the vehicle current position is outside a stop area, or when it is determined at Step 40 that the vehicle current position is within a release area, map matching processing is performed (Step 50).” See at least col. 7, ll. 33–52. Note: Here, a stop area (i.e., the second geofence) has an associated offset-decay rate in the sense that the offset is completely decayed to zero. On the other hand, an area outside a stop area has an associated offset-decay rate of zero in the sense that the offset is not decayed; said offset-decay rate is necessarily less than the second offset-decay rate.).
Claim 13 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Vollath and in view of Coffee.
As to claim 13, Usui discloses a method of correcting location measurements, comprising:
receiving, via a user interface, a definition of a first geofence and a second geofence (“A stop area and a release area can be set by …operation switch group 7 [i.e., a user interface].” See at least col. 5, ll. 43–56. “When the release area switch [part of the operation switch group 7] has been selected, a map including the release area is displayed, and the range of the release area can be corrected or deleted.” See at least col. 6, ll. 5–12. See also FIGS. 1 and 3. Examiner note: Defining a release area analogizes to providing (and hence receiving) a definition of a geofence as a release area represents a geofence where map matching is performed. Also, at least FIG.5A illustrates that multiple release areas (e.g., exit and entry release areas) may be defined, thereby yielding at least first and second geofences.);
storing a representation of the first geofence at least in part using a first set of parameters provided in one or more data structures, the first set of parameters identifying a region to which the first geofence is assigned on a virtual map and a first spatial offset to be applied to location measurements falling within the first geofence (“In a case where the range and name of the stop area, and further, the release area are set, the range of the release area is also stored in the external memory 9.” See at least col. 5, ll. 57–67 to col. 6, ll. 1–4 and FIG. 3. “When the release area switch [part of the operation switch group 7] has been selected, a map including the release area is displayed, and the range of the release area can be corrected or deleted.” See at least col. 6, ll. 5–12. See also FIGS. 1 and 3. See at least col. 1, ll. 61–67 to col. 2, ll. 1–12 which explains map matching, which applies a spatial offset to location measurements falling within a geofence (here, a release area). Indeed, “when it is determined … that the vehicle current position is outside a stop area, or when it is determined at Step 40 that the vehicle current position is within a release area, map matching processing is performed (Step 50).” See at least col. 7, ll. 33–52.);
storing a representation of the second geofence at least in part using a second set of parameters provided in one or more data structures, the second set of parameters identifying a region to which the second geofence is assigned on the virtual map and a second spatial offset to be applied to location measurements falling within the second geofence (See at least col. 5, ll. 57–67 to col. 6, ll. 1–4 and FIG. 3; col. 6, ll. 5–12. See at least col. 1, ll. 61–67 to col. 2, ll. 1–12. See at least col. 7, ll. 33–52. See also FIGS. 1 and 5A. Finally, note from above that multiple, including a second, geofence may be defined. ); and
directing a vehicle to correct its own measurements of location based on a stored spatial offset (The foregoing processing is performed by a “vehicle navigation apparatus provided in a vehicle.” See at least claim 1.).
Usui fails to explicitly disclose: directing a vehicle to correct its own measurements of location based on a sum of the first spatial offset and the second spatial offset.
Nevertheless, Vollath teaches: correcting a measurement of location based on a sum of first and second spatial offsets (To determine a current position, “a position vector of the rover station for the first instance in time is obtained,” and then “a first position difference vector is obtained” wherein “the first position difference vector is added to the position vector of the first instance in time to obtain an estimate of the current position vector.” See at least ¶¶ 148–150.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location; and defining first and second spatial offset with first and second geofences, respectively. Vollath teaches: correcting a measurement of location based on a sum of first and second spatial offsets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Usui to include the feature of: correcting a measurement of location based on a sum of first and second spatial offsets, as taught by Vollath, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing “high accuracy positioning results.” (Vollath, ¶ 10.) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, with a reasonable expectation of success, Usui may be modified by Vollath to yield the predictable result of summing Usui’s spatial offsets — which are associated with geofences —to arrive at a final corrected position of a vehicle.
The combination of Usui and Vollath fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises alerting a golfer of a location of the golf cart relative to a green of a golf course based on corrected measurements of the golf cart’s location.
Nevertheless, Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises alerting a golfer of a location of the golf cart relative to a green of a golf course based on corrected measurements of the golf cart’s location (The disclosed system provides “real-time, accurate indications of distance … from the cart to significant course features—[e.g.,] green.” Col. 3, ll. 1-11.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises alerting a golfer of a location of the golf cart relative to a green of a golf course based on corrected measurements of the golf cart’s location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Usui and Vollath to include the feature of: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises alerting a golfer of a location of the golf cart relative to a green of a golf course based on corrected measurements of the golf cart’s location, as taught by Coffee, to arrive at the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for exploiting the advantages of the invention of Usui-Schmid and applying it to a golf context, thereby yielding a product which is desirable to golfers. (See Coffee, Abstract which discusses how map matching pertains to golfing.)
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Vollath and in view of Coffee as applied to claim 13 – further in view of Han.
As to claim 14, the combination of Usui, Vollath and Coffee fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the set of parameters that define the geofence further define a maximum cumulative correction that can be applied in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence.
Nevertheless, Han teaches: defining a maximum cumulative correction that can be applied in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence (A “maximum allowable correction” may be determined for performing GPS correction – see at least ¶¶ 106 and 107.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Coffee teaches: wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, and wherein the method further comprises alerting a golfer of a location of the golf cart relative to a green of a golf course based on corrected measurements of the golf cart’s location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui, Vollath and Coffee to include the feature of: defining a maximum cumulative correction that can be applied in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence, as taught by Han, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for increasing accuracy and robustness of a GPS-based navigation system. (See Han, ¶ 3.)
As to claim 15, Usui discloses: wherein the set of parameters associated with the geofence further defines a decay parameter, and wherein the method further comprises reducing a cumulative correction based on the decay parameter in response to current locations of the vehicle falling outside of the geofence (“A stop area can be set in an arbitrary area, and when the vehicle enters the stop area, the map matching processing is stopped.” See at least col. 2, ll. 63–67 to col. 3, ll. 1–3. Note: The vehicle being in a stop area analogizes to a vehicle being outside of a geofence because the vehicle’s location is outside of a defined area (geofence) for performing map matching. Within a stop area, a decay parameter which reduces a cumulative correction comes into play in the sense that no cumulative correction is performed when the vehicle’s location falls outside of the geofence.).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Schmid.
As to claim 16, Usui discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a body (“A vehicle” – see at least claim 1. Examiner note: A vehicle necessarily entails a body.);
a computing device (“control circuit 8” – see at least col. 4, ll. 19–24. and FIG. 1.); and
a GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver operatively coupled to the computing device (“GPS receiver 5” – see at least col. 4, ll. 25–42.),
wherein the computing device includes control circuitry constructed and arranged to:
generate a current location of a vehicle based at least in part on GPS (Global Positioning System) signals received by a GPS receiver of the vehicle (A “GPS receiver 5” is used for “measurement of vehicle position” – see at least col. 4, ll. 26–42.);
identify the current location on a virtual map (“A vehicle current position” is identified in relation to a “road map” – see at least col. 5, ll. 12–19.); and
adjust the current location of the vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on the map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location (“The principle of the map matching processing will be briefly described in accordance with FIGS. 7A, 7B and 7C …. The shape of each of the selected candidate roads is compared with the shape of the vehicle travel locus. A road with the highest correlativity is regarded as a road where the vehicle is traveling. The vehicle position is determined on the road. In the example of FIG. 7C, as the road b has the highest correlativity, it is considered that the vehicle is traveling on the road b, and the vehicle position is determined on the road b.” See at least col. 1, ll. 61–67 to col. 2, ll. 1–12. “When it is determined … that the vehicle current position is outside a stop area, or when it is determined at Step 40 that the vehicle current position is within a release area, map matching processing is performed (Step 50).” See at least col. 7, ll. 33–52.);
generate a second location of the vehicle based at least in part on additional GPS signals received by the GPS receiver (A “GPS receiver 5” is used for “measurement of vehicle position” – see at least col. 4, ll. 26–42. Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Usui’s invention is not limited towards only gathering one measurement, and that Usui’s GPS receiver would be capable of obtaining first, second, etc. current locations of a vehicle at respective timestamps.); and
adjust the second location based on the spatial offset (See at least col. 1, ll. 61–67 to col. 2, ll. 1–12; and col. 7, ll. 33–52. Note: Again, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Usui’s invention is not limited to only one adjustment of a first location, but rather that Usui can be used in further iterations to apply corresponding spatial offsets to second, third, etc. detected current locations).
Usui fails to explicitly disclose: in response to a determination that the adjusted second location of the vehicle still falls within the geofence, apply the spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted using the spatial offset.
Nevertheless, Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, apply a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset (“As shown in FIG. 1b, a second position 2 of the vehicle is determined by fitting the first position 1 into the road from the digital map K.” ¶ 30 and FIG. 1b. “A corrected position of the vehicle is now determined in the fourth step. For this purpose, the minimum deviation of the computed distance from the real distance is determined. It is particularly preferable for this to use the method of least squares, that is the position change is sought iteratively until Min(Σ(ΔL_i)2 is reached with i>I.” ¶¶ 38-39. “It is particularly preferable for this to shift the digital map iteratively so that the deviation of the computed distance from the real distance is minimized. …. An improved corrected position 5 results from said displacement, as shown in FIG. 1e.” ¶ 40 and FIG. 1e. “Finally, in a fifth step the method can be improved still further by carrying out a second correction. …. The corrected position of the vehicle is then said last corrected position 6.” ¶ 41. Note: Summarizing, a first vehicle position is adjusted to a second vehicle position (position 2). Then, the second position is iteratively adjusted through the application of spatial offset(s) to an improved corrected position 5. Further still, the improved corrected position 5 may be further adjusted by application of spatial offset(s) to a last corrected position 6. Therefore, the vehicle’s second location is at least twice adjusted through at least the iterative process to arrive at position 5 or through the further correction to arrive at corrected position 6.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Usui to include the feature of: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, apply a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset, as taught by Schmid, to arrive at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to provide “a method or a system with which a vehicle position can be determined more precisely.” (Schmid, ¶ 4.)
While Schmid does not explicitly disclose applying the spatial offset a second time – that is, applying a fixed spatial offset in an iterative manner – the claimed invention would still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the combination of Usui and Schmid. Namely, modifying Schmid’s dynamic offset to a fixed offset as required by the claim would be an obvious design choice with no unpredictable consequences as the same end result would be achieved of arriving at a final corrected location through reapplication of spatial offsets. Importantly, Applicant’s Specification does not provide criticality or technical rational to choose a fixed offset over a dynamic one; that is, the Specification’s discussion of spatial offsets does not specify that the spatial offset must be fixed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Schmid’s offset to a fixed offset to simplify computational resource consumption, which is a well-recognized design consideration in the art. Therefore, the claim limitation at issue would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 2 as the claims recite similar subject matter.
Claim 18 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Schmid as applied to claim 16 – further in view of Persson.
As to claim 18, the combination of Usui and Schmid fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the current location is one of multiple current locations generated based at least in part on GPS signals received by the vehicle over time, and wherein the method further comprises applying corrections repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence.
Nevertheless, Sugimoto teaches: wherein the current location is one of multiple current locations generated based at least in part on GPS signals received by the vehicle over time, and further applying corrections repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence (“The mobile communication circuit 43 can receive a correction signal Sc for correcting a GNSS signal Sg …. The correction signal Sc includes a correction value for correcting information such as the latitude, longitude, altitude, time, or the like included in the GNSS signal Sg for each positioning satellite.” See at least ¶ 47 and FIG. 5. Examiner note: The correction value analogizes to a spatial offset from a set of parameters as it is used to correct a position by a certain spatial offset to a corrected position. Continuing, FIG. 5 illustrates that the corrections are applied repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly requiring correction (i.e., within a geofence).).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Sugimoto teaches: accessing a spatial offset from a set of parameters associated with a geofence; and wherein the current location is one of multiple current locations generated based at least in part on GPS signals received by the vehicle over time, and further applying corrections repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui and Schmid to include the feature of: wherein the current location is one of multiple current locations generated based at least in part on GPS signals received by the vehicle over time, and further applying corrections repeatedly and cumulatively in response to current locations of the vehicle repeatedly falling within the geofence, as taught by Sugimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for enhancing accuracy of positional information. (See Sugimoto, ¶ 3.)
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Schmid and in view of Persson as applied to claim 18 – further in view of Sugimoto.
As to claim 19, the combination of Usui and Schmid fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the spatial offset is defined by a set of parameters associated with the geofence, and wherein adjusting the current location of the vehicle includes accessing the spatial offset from the set of parameters.
Nevertheless, Sugimoto teaches: wherein the spatial offset is defined by a set of parameters associated with the geofence, and wherein adjusting the current location of the vehicle includes accessing the spatial offset from the set of parameters (“The mobile communication circuit 43 can receive a correction signal Sc for correcting a GNSS signal Sg …. The correction signal Sc includes a correction value for correcting information such as the latitude, longitude, altitude, time, or the like included in the GNSS signal Sg for each positioning satellite.” See at least ¶ 47 and FIG. 5. Examiner note: The correction value analogizes to a spatial offset from a set of parameters as it is used to correct a position by a certain spatial offset to a corrected position.).
Usui discloses: a method for correcting location measurements comprising adjusting a current location of a vehicle in response to detecting that the current location falls within a defined geofence on a map, said adjusting including applying a spatial offset to the current location. Schmid teaches: in response to determining that an adjusted second location of a vehicle still is not corrected, applying a spatial offset a second time, such that the second location is twice adjusted through the application of a spatial offset. Sugimoto teaches: accessing a spatial offset from a set of parameters associated with a geofence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Usui and Schmid to include the feature of: wherein the spatial offset is defined by a set of parameters associated with the geofence, and wherein adjusting the current location of the vehicle includes accessing the spatial offset from the set of parameters, as taught by Sugimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for enhancing accuracy of positional information. (See Sugimoto, ¶ 3.)
As to claim 20, Usui discloses: wherein the set of parameters associated with the geofence further defines a decay parameter, and wherein the method further comprises reducing a cumulative correction based on the decay parameter in response to current locations of the vehicle falling outside of the geofence (“A stop area can be set in an arbitrary area, and when the vehicle enters the stop area, the map matching processing is stopped.” See at least col. 2, ll. 63–67 to col. 3, ll. 1–3. Examiner note: The vehicle being in a stop area analogizes to a vehicle being outside of a geofence because the vehicle’s location is outside of a defined area (geofence) for performing map matching. Within a stop area, a decay parameter which reduces a cumulative correction comes into play in the sense that no cumulative correction is performed when the vehicle’s location falls outside of the geofence.).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
1 N.B. The “thereby” clause of this limitation does not limit the claim’s scope as it constitutes claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require step(s) to be performed. (See MPEP § 2111.04.)