Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objection
2. In claim 5, the phrase “the two-dimensional K-D tree” should be changed to “a two-dimensional K-D tree”.
In claim 8, the phrase “comparing the updated x coordinate with an original y coordinate” should change to “comparing the updated x coordinate with an original x coordinate.”
In claims 10 and 13, the phrase “the closest position” should be changed to “the closest point”.
In claims 10, the phrase “the point” should be changed to “the particular point”.
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.
3. Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
storing a sequence of points, each point corresponding to a different set of Cartesian coordinates;
generating a curve that approximates a line that passes through the sequence of points [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
based on the curve, generating a set of points on the curve, wherein the set of points are different than the sequence of points [mental process/step];
generating new Cartesian coordinates for each point in the set of points [mental process/ mathematical concept/step];
after generating the new Cartesian coordinates, determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of a moving object [mental process/ mathematical concept/step];
determining a particular point, on the curve, that is nearest to the position [mental process/ mathematical concept/step];
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” and “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and mathematical operations. For example, “determining…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at generated data, i.e. Cartesian coordinate of set of points, and associating the data into positions and transcribing it into text. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. In addition, “generating…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person performing mathematical operation, which can be performed on paper, to find a curve, points on the curve, and finding Cartesian coordinates of each point and position of a moving object.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method comprising [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h)]:
storing a sequence of points, each point corresponding to a different set of Cartesian coordinates [insignificant pre solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g)];
generating a curve that approximates a line that passes through the sequence of points [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
based on the curve, generating a set of points on the curve, wherein the set of points are different than the sequence of points [mental process/step];
generating new Cartesian coordinates for each point in the set of points [mental process/ mathematical concept/step];
after generating the new Cartesian coordinates, determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of a moving object [mental process/ mathematical concept/step];
determining a particular point, on the curve, that is nearest to the position [mental process/ mathematical concept/step];
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices[applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, “apply it” 2106.05(f)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a method”, the examiner submits that this is recited at a high level of generality and serves only to link the particular abstract concept to a broad technical field. Regarding the “storing a sequence of points, each point corresponding to a different set of Cartesian coordinates”, this merely comprises gathering data from computing device/GPS and it can be done through a generic computer and processor. Regarding the “wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices”, specifically, this merely comprises performing and outputting the result of the mental process using a generic computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “computing devices” to perform the storing, generating, and determining amounts to nothing 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. And, as discussed above, the additional limitations related to acquiring and transmitting data, the examiner submits that these limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim(s) 2-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims 2-11 only recites filtering and removing points, generating and determining additional points, vectors and lines, determining and calculating new coordinates of particular point and differences between coordinates of position and points, and identifying a point, which are all mathematical concept and mental process as mentioned above.
Independent claim 17 recites similar limitations to independent claim 1 and therefore requires a similar rejection.
Dependent claims 18-19 recites similar limitations to dependent claims 2 and 6 and therefore requires a similar rejection.
4. Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 12 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 12 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 12 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of a moving object [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
identifying the closest point, on a reference line, to the position [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
identifying the second closest point, on the reference line, to the position [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
based on the closest point and the second closest point, identifying a point, on the reference line that is between the closest point and the second closest point [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” and “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and mathematical operations. For example, “determining…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at generated data, i.e. Cartesian coordinate of a moving object, and associating the data into positions and transcribing it into text. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. In addition, “identifying…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person performing mathematical operation, which can be performed on paper, to find closest points on a reference line and a point in between closest points.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method comprising [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h)]:
determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of a moving object [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
identifying the closest point, on a reference line, to the position [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
identifying the second closest point, on the reference line, to the position [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
based on the closest point and the second closest point, identifying a point, on the reference line that is between the closest point and the second closest point [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices[applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, “apply it” 2106.05(f)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a method”, the examiner submits that this is recited at a high level of generality and serves only to link the particular abstract concept to a broad technical field. Regarding the “wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices”, specifically, this merely comprises performing and outputting the result of the mental process using a generic computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “computing devices” to perform the storing, generating, and determining amounts to nothing 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. And, as discussed above, the additional limitations related to acquiring and transmitting data, the examiner submits that these limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim(s) 13-16 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims 13-16 only recites filtering and removing points, generating and determining additional points, vectors and lines, determining and calculating new coordinates of particular point and differences between coordinates of position and points, and identifying a point, which are all mathematical concept and mental process as mentioned above. The dependent claim 20 only recites storage media with instruction to perform of the method in claim 12, which merely storing an instruction using a generic computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim 1, 4-6, 9, 12, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reshef et al. (US 20220097714A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reshef et al. (US 20220097714A1) teaches a method comprising:
storing a sequence of points, each point corresponding to a different set of Cartesian coordinates (see [0028]-[0030] and Fig. 3 where there are series of midway points showing a representation of a road, and where there are both online and offline sampling and storage of waypoints which includes position (x, y), i.e. storing sequence of points with Cartesian coordinates.);
generating a curve that approximates a line that passes through the sequence of points (see Figs 3-4, [0028] and [0034] where a road center is represented as a spline polynomial function and where linear segments connect waypoints with a curve representing a continuous road curve through the waypoints, i.e. a curve that approximates a line through points.);
based on the curve, generating a set of points on the curve, wherein the set of points are different than the sequence of points (see [0029] where processor samples each polynomial functions to generate a set of waypoints. See also, in Fig. 5, [0035] and [0036] where it is indicated that a first estimate point on a curve is found using a source point and a linear segment. Then, a refined second estimate point is found on the curve using interpolation of the first estimate point, i.e. generating points on the curve based on the curve.);
generating new Cartesian coordinates for each point in the set of points (see [0029] where waypoints include position (x, y) and [0037] discusses use of Cartesian when locating points on a curve.);
after generating the new Cartesian coordinates, determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of a moving object (see [0040] and Fig. 6 where box 602 obtains Cartesian coordinates for source points as well as waypoints.);
determining a particular point, on the curve, that is nearest to the position (see Fig. 4 and [0032] where KD-tree is used to determine relevant waypoints by grouping them into clusters and querying nearest neighboring waypoints to a source point. See also in Fig. 5 and [0035]-[0036] as mentioned above where projection is used to find estimate nearest first and second points on a curve.);
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (see [0023]-[0024] where there is a controller with processor and storage media to execute instructions, i.e. computing device.).
Regarding claim 4, Reshef teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: after generating new Cartesian coordinates for each point in the set of points, generating a two-dimensional K-D tree based on the set of points (see [0029] and [0032] where a set of waypoints are generated each with Cartesian position (x, y) and it indicates that a KD-tree is used to group waypoints into clusters, such that querying for a nearest neighboring waypoint is done efficiently, i.e. KD-tree generated based on set of waypoints.).
Regarding claim 5, Reshef teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the particular point comprises using the Cartesian coordinates of the position and the two-dimensional K-D tree to determine the particular point (see [0029] and [0040] where a set of waypoints are in Cartesian (x, y) and specifically indicates moving object position in Cartesian coordinates. See further [0032] where it indicates that a KD-tree is used to group waypoints into clusters, such that querying for a nearest neighboring waypoints to a source point, i.e. determining particular point nearest to a position of a moving object.).
Regarding claim 6, Reshef teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising, after generating new Cartesian coordinates for each point in the set of points:
generating a unit vector for each pair of adjacent points in the set of points;
computing an angle of a normal vector at each point in the set of points (see [0037] where angle between a unit normal vector determined at a point along a curve and origin source vector is determined using law of cosines. Note also in [0029] where each waypoint has associate set of waypoint statistics that includes tangent and normal vectors.); or
computing a longitudinal distance from the beginning of the curve to each point in the set of points (see [0027] where it shows each source points parametrized within a road centered reference frame by a longitudinal positions. Further, in [0037] a first estimate point on a curve and second estimate point refined as shown in claim 1 describes them as distances traveled along a curve, i.e. a longitudinal distance from beginning to each point.).
Regarding claim 9, Reshef teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the particular point is the closest point on the curve to the position (see Fig. 4, [0032], and [0035]-[0036] as shown in claim 1.), the method further comprising:
determining the second closest point, on the curve, to the position (see [0031]-[0032] where one or more waypoint clusters, which includes second closest point, on a curve, are selected having a shortest distance to a selected source cluster. Note also that KD-trees is used to group nearest neighboring waypoint cluster to a selected source point, which includes second closest point.);
based on the closest point and the second closest point, identifying a point, on the curve that is between the closest point and the second closest point (see Fig. 5 and [0034]-[0036] where two closest waypoints to a source point, i.e. closest and second closest points, are connected by a linear segment which generates a linear projection of the source point, and then is used to determine a first estimate point that is located on a curve between the closest and second closest points.).
Regarding claim 12, Reshef teaches a method comprising:
determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of a moving object (see [0027] where source point, i.e. position of a moving object, are sensed in a Cartesian reference frame.);
identifying the closest point, on a reference line, to the position (see [0032]-[0034] and Figs 4-5 where there are multiple waypoints along a curve, i.e. a reference line, nearest waypoints, i.e. closest points, to source points are clustered together, and first and second closest waypoints are used.);
identifying the second closest point, on the reference line, to the position (see [0032]-[0034] and Figs 4-5 where there are multiple waypoints along a curve, i.e. a reference line, nearest waypoints, i.e. closest points, to source points are clustered together, and first and second closest waypoints are used.);
based on the closest point and the second closest point, identifying a point, on the reference line that is between the closest point and the second closest point (see [0034]-[0035] where there is a line segment between two waypoints, i.e. a reference line, and a projection line onto the line segment is made with an intersection giving closest point on the line segment. Then, a first estimate point on a curve, i.e. a point between closest and second closest, is determined using the projection line.);
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (see [0023]-[0024] where there is a controller with a processor and a computer readable storage device or media, i.e. a computing device.).
Regarding claim 17, Reshef teaches one or more storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices (see [0023]-[0024] in general where there is a controller with a processor and a computer readable storage device or media, i.e. a computing device, that executes instructions and control signals.), causes:
storing a sequence of points, each point corresponding to a different set of Cartesian coordinates (see [0028]-[0030] and Fig. 3 where there are series of midway points showing a representation of a road, and where there are both online and offline sampling and storage of waypoints which includes position (x, y), i.e. storing sequence of points with Cartesian coordinates.);
generating a curve that approximates a line that passes through the sequence of points (see Figs 3-4, [0028] and [0034] where a road center is represented as a spline polynomial function and where linear segments connect waypoints with a curve representing a continuous road curve through the waypoints, i.e. a curve that approximates a line through points.);
based on the curve, generating a set of points on the curve, wherein the set of points are different than the sequence of points (see [0029] where processor samples each polynomial functions to generate a set of waypoints. See also, in Fig. 5, [0035] and [0036] where it is indicated that a first estimate point on a curve is found using a source point and a linear segment. Then, a refined second estimate point is found on the curve using interpolation of the first estimate point, i.e. generating points on the curve based on the curve.);
generating new Cartesian coordinates for each point in the set of points (see [0029] where waypoints include position (x, y) and [0037] discusses use of Cartesian when locating points on a curve.);
after generating the new Cartesian coordinates, determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of a moving object (see [0040] and Fig. 6 where box 602 obtains Cartesian coordinates for source points as well as waypoints.);
determining a particular point, on the curve, that is nearest to the position (see Fig. 4 and [0032] where KD-tree is used to determine relevant waypoints by grouping them into clusters and querying nearest neighboring waypoints to a source point. See also in Fig. 5 and [0035]-[0036] as mentioned above where projection is used to find estimate nearest first and second points on a curve.).
Regarding claim 19, Reshef teaches the one or more storage media of Claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computing devices (see [0023]-[0024] in general as show in claim 17), further cause, after generating new Cartesian coordinates for each point in the set of points (see [0027] where all points are in Cartesian reference frame and road centered reference frame, i.e. Cartesian coordinates for each points.):
generating a unit vector for each pair of adjacent points in the set of points (see [0029] where a processor samples polynomial function that generates waypoints and each waypoint has an associated set of waypoint statistics that includes tangent and normal vectors.);
computing an angle of a normal vector at each point in the set of points; or
computing a longitudinal distance from the beginning of the curve to each point in the set of points.
Regarding claim 20, Reshef teaches one or more storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices, causes performance of the method recited in Claim 12 (see [0023]-[0024] where there is a controller with a processor and a computer readable storage device or media, i.e. a computing device, that executes instructions and control signals.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claim 2 and 18 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Ito et al. (US 20230135242A1).
Regarding claim 2, Reshef teaches the method of Claim 1,
Reshef does not teach: further comprising:
prior to generating the curve, smoothing the sequence of points using a low pass filter.
However, Ito et al. (US 20230135242A1) teaches low-pass filtering a lane-shape point sequence by extracting coordinate sequences, performing low-pass filtering on each sequence, and reconstructing a filtered point sequence with filters such as Butterworth, Chebyshev, i.e. smoothing sequence of points using a low-pass filter before generating curves (see [0048]-[0049] and [0064]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify road coordinate transformations using waypoints, line segments, curves and estimation of first and second waypoints using linear projections of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Ito such that low-pass filtering is performed to smooth out sequence of points before generating a curve.
The motivation to combine waypoints, line segment, and curve generation with smoothing out a sequence of points using a low-pass filter is that, as indicated by Ito, this would allow a prevention of vibrational behavior of a moving object and/or vehicles that degrade a ride quality due to small radius of curvatures not having been filtered out (see [0005]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 18, Reshef teaches the one or more storage media of Claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computing devices (see [0023]-[0024] in general as show in claim 17), further cause:
Reshef does not teach: prior to generating the curve, smoothing the sequence of points using a low pass filter.
However, Ito et al. (US 20230135242A1) teaches low-pass filtering a lane-shape point sequence by extracting coordinate sequences, performing low-pass filtering on each sequence, and reconstructing a filtered point sequence with filters such as Butterworth, Chebyshev, i.e. smoothing sequence of points using a low-pass filter before generating curves (see [0048]-[0049] and [0064]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify road coordinate transformations using waypoints, line segments, curves and estimation of first and second waypoints using linear projections of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Ito such that low-pass filtering is performed to smooth out sequence of points before generating a curve.
The motivation to combine waypoints, line segment, and curve generation with smoothing out a sequence of points using a low-pass filter is that, as indicated by Ito, this would allow a prevention of vibrational behavior of a moving object and/or vehicles that degrade a ride quality due to small radius of curvatures not having been filtered out (see [0005]-[0007]).
7. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Gataric (US 12051283B1).
Regarding claim 3, Reshef teaches the method of Claim 1,
Reshef does not teach: further comprising:
prior to generating the curve, removing duplicate points from the sequence of points.
However, Gataric (US 12051283B1) teaches deleting duplicate spatial data points of a vehicle trips and converting points into a line, i.e. removing duplicate points before generating a curve (see [col 4 lns 6-42] and [col 7 lns 32-49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify road coordinate transformations using waypoints, line segments, curves and finding first and second estimate points using linear projections of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Gataric such that duplicate spatial points are deleted before generating a curve.
The motivation to combine waypoints, line segment, and curve generation with deleting duplicate points is that, as indicated by Gataric, this would allow for a simplified line of turn of interest with fewer set of points that gives necessary curve to correctly turn in an intersection (see [col 1 ln 28 thru col 3 ln 17]).
8. Claim 7-8 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Peake (US 20080275602A1).
Regarding claim 7, Reshef teaches the method of Claim 1,
Reshef does not teach further comprising:
generating a first cubic spline that maps, for each point in the set of points, an S value at said each point to a corresponding x value in the x coordinate dimension;
generating a second cubic spline that maps, for each point in the set of points, an S value at said each point to a corresponding y value in the y coordinate dimension.
However, Peake (US 20080275602A1) teaches a poly-point path comprising of 2-D reference points and a number of straight lines substituted by cubic spline functions, which includes cubic spline fit of east to linear path distance and north to linear path distance, i.e. mapping S value to x (east) and y (north) coordinate components (see [0047] and Figs 2-3, [0029]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify road coordinate transformations using waypoints, line segments, curves and finding first and second estimate points using linear projections of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Peake such that a road curve is represented by two cubic spline functions of east and north, which are x and y, parameterized by a longitudinal path distance parameter.
The motivation to combine waypoints, line segment, and curve generation with deleting duplicate points is that, as indicated by Peake, this would allow for a substitution of straight-line segments between reference points with cubic spline functions to provide smooth, continuous path representation for vehicle guidance (see [0005]-[0006] and [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Reshef in view of Peake teaches the method of Claim 7,
further comprising:
determining an s value and a d value for a particular position of a particular moving object (see Reshef [0027] where it indicates a vehicle sensing various source points that is parametrized with a road-centered reference frame, which moves along a road, by a longitudinal position (s) and lateral position (d) of the source point.);
determining an x coordinate, on the curve, based on the s value and the first cubic spline; determining a y coordinate, on the curve, based on the s value and the second cubic spline (see Reshef [0035]-[0036] where refined longitudinal position (s) is found through line projection onto a line segment between closest waypoints, then using distance from a waypoint to line projection to place first estimate point, and then refining the first estimate point through law of cosine, which is based on Pythagorean theorem, i.e. uses a distance formula that includes x and y coordinate differences; see also [0027]-[0028] and Fig. 3 where road reference frame is transformed into Cartesian reference frame in order to be tracked by vehicle and lane center is represented as a spline of polynomial functions.);
calculating an updated x coordinate based on the x coordinate, the d value, and a third cubic spline; calculating an updated y coordinate based on the y coordinate, the d value, and a fourth cubic spline (see Reshef [0038] and Fig. 5 where lateral component (d) is found using equation 4 mentioned that involves using difference of distance from origin to source point and refined second estimate point to the source point. Note also that the equation uses vector to denote context of Cartesian coordinate system and paragraph [0040]-[0042] indicates obtaining Cartesian coordinates and converting into Cartesian reference frame, i.e. x and y coordinates.);
comparing the updated x coordinate with an original x coordinate of the particular position; comparing the updated y coordinate with an original y coordinate of the particular position (see Peake [0064] where it teaches a cross track error XTE using equation 2 which is used to find a perpendicular distance between a point on a curve to a position of a moving object to determine how far off course the object is.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify road coordinate transformations using waypoints, line segments, curves and finding first and refined second estimate points using linear projections and using Cartesian coordinates to find distance between refined second estimate point to a position of a moving object of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Peake such that a road curve is represented by two cubic spline functions of east and north, which are x and y, parameterized by a longitudinal path distance parameter and calculating cross check error that indicates how far off the moving object is.
The motivation to combine waypoints, line segment, and curve generation with cross track error, as indicated by Peake, this would allow for an accurate calculation of a closest point on a curve and allow for a substitution of straight-line segments between reference points with cubic spline functions to provide smooth, continuous path representation for vehicle guidance (see [0005]-[0006] and [0010]-[0012]).
9. Claim 10 and 13 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Peeters et al. (US 20110153267A1).
Regarding claim 10, Reshef teaches the method of Claim 9, further comprising:
determining a third delta value that is a difference between an x coordinate of the position and the x coordinate of the closest position; determining a fourth delta value that is a difference between a y coordinate of the position and the y coordinate of the closest position; wherein identifying the point is based on the first delta value, the second delta value, the third delta value, and the fourth delta value (see Fig. 5 and [0035]-[0037] where a distance along linear segment between a linear projection and a waypoint, i.e. closest point, is determined an equivalent distance from the waypoint is used to find a first estimate point. Further, in [0037], it is shown that law of cosine is used with the source point, i.e. position, and first estimate, which is found using closest point, to find a refined second estimate point, i.e. identifying a particular point using delta values. Note that law of cosine is based on Pythagorean theorem, i.e. uses a distance formula that includes x and y coordinate differences.).
Reshef does not teach:
determining a first delta value that is a difference between an x coordinate of the closest point and an x coordinate of the second closest point; determining a second delta value that is a difference between a y coordinate of the closest point and a y coordinate of the second closest point;
However, Peeters et al. (US 20110153267A1) teaches two points on a straight line segment taken from a curve/spline where distance between the two points are found using difference of x coordinates of the two points and difference of y coordinates of the two points, i.e. first and second delta values (see [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify road coordinate transformations using waypoints, line segments, curves and estimation of first and second refined waypoints using linear projections of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Peeters such that distance between two closest waypoints are found through straight line segment and difference between x and y coordinates of the two closest waypoints.
The motivation to combine waypoints, line segment, and curve generation with finding a distance between two closest waypoints to a source point, i.e. position, as indicated by Peeters, this would allow for a simpler and quicker calculation of a distance with minimized error, with better privacy, and with cost effectiveness (see [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Reshef teaches the method of Claim 12, further comprising:
determining a third delta value that is a difference between an x coordinate of the position and the x coordinate of the closest position; determining a fourth delta value that is a difference between a y coordinate of the position and the y coordinate of the closest position; wherein identifying the point is based on the first delta value, the second delta value, the third delta value, and the fourth delta value (see Fig. 5 and [0035]-[0037] where a distance along linear segment between a linear projection and a waypoint, i.e. closest point, is determined an equivalent distance from the waypoint is used to find a first estimate point. Further, in [0037], it is shown that law of cosine is used with the source point, i.e. position, and first estimate, which is found using closest point, to find a refined second estimate point, i.e. identifying a point using delta values. Note that law of cosine is based on Pythagorean theorem, i.e. uses a distance formula that includes x and y coordinate differences.).
Reshef does not teach:
determining a first delta value that is a difference between an x coordinate of the closest point and an x coordinate of the second closest point; determining a second delta value that is a difference between a y coordinate of the closest point and a y coordinate of the second closest point;
However, Peeters et al. (US 20110153267A1) teaches two points on a straight line segment taken from a curve/spline where distance between the two points are found using difference of x coordinates of the two points and difference of y coordinates of the two points, i.e. first and second delta values (see [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify road coordinate transformations using waypoints, line segments, curves and estimation of first and second refined waypoints using linear projections of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Peeters such that relevant distances, such as a line segment between two closest waypoints, are determined through difference between x and y coordinates of the two points.
The motivation to combine waypoints, line segment, and curve generation with finding a distance between two closest waypoints to a source point, i.e. position, as indicated by Peeters, this would allow for a simpler and quicker calculation of a distance with minimized error, with better privacy, and with cost effectiveness (see [0020]-[0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 11, 14, 15, and 16 objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims. Claims 11, 14, 15, and 16 must also overcome rejection of 35 USC 101.
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites:
“the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
calculating a distance between the position and the particular point;
determining a second point on the curve;
calculating an angle between two vectors, each is which is based on the second point;
determining on which side of the curve the position is located based on the angle.”
No single prior art reference has been found to anticipate these limitations particularly of “calculating an angle between two vectors, each is which is based on the second point; determining on which side of the curve the position is located based on the angle”, nor any combination of prior art reference to render these limitations obvious, when viewed in the context of the remaining limitations of the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is found to be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Claim 16 recites limitations similar to claim 11, particularly of the limitations shown above. Therefore, similarly, no single prior art reference has been found to anticipate these limitations, nor any combination of prior art references to render these limitations obvious, when viewed in the context of the remaining limitations of the claims. As such, claim 16 found to be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
In regards to claim 14, the claim recites:
“the method of Claim 13, further comprising:
generating a projection norm value based on the first delta value, the second delta value, the third delta value, and the fourth delta value;
generating delta Cartesian coordinates based on the projection norm value, the first delta value, and the second delta value;
wherein identifying the point is based on the delta Cartesian coordinates.”
No single prior art reference has been found to anticipate these limitations particularly of “generating a projection norm value based on the first delta value, the second delta value, the third delta value, and the fourth delta value; generating delta Cartesian coordinates based on the projection norm value, the first delta value, and the second delta value”, nor any combination of prior art reference to render these limitations obvious, when viewed in the context of the remaining limitations of the claim. Therefore, claim 14 is found to be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
The dependent claim 15 would also be allowable by virtue of its dependency on allowable based claim 14 if claim 14 is rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Matsuda et al. (US 6169952B1), uses plurality of nodes in Fig. 7 and straight lines in between the nodes to determine distances and smoother curves.
b. Utter et al. (US 20180236937A1), incrementally records positional datapoints and Fig. 4 shows trajectory and vectors.
c. Dorum et al. (EP 2821751A1), Bezier curves obtained from B-splines which provides curves, slope and heading profiles.
d. Madsen et al. (WO 2018067473A1), uses sensors and GNSS to receive heading data and uses low pass filter to correctly head in a preferred direction.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661