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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s argument file April 6, 2026 regarding objections of claims 5, 8, 10 and 13 have been withdrawn due to the amendments made addressing the objections.
Applicant’s argument filed April 6, 2026 regarding rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument filed April 6, 2026 regarding rejection of claims 1, 12, and 17 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but amended independent claims 1, 12, and 17 require further search and consideration and are moot.
Applicant’s argument filed 6, 2026 regarding rejection of claims 2-11, 13-16, and 19-21 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but amended dependent claims require further search and consideration as well as rejected by virtue of dependency to the rejected independent claims 1, 12, and 17, and are unpersuasive.
3. Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 improves absolute localization of moving objects because the claim embodiments offer a robust and highly accurate transformation from Cartesian coordinate to a reference line and can process an input from any curve without giving unexpected wrong results.
However, examiner argues that amended independent claim 1 does not overcome the rejection of 101. As applicant states in the arguments and remarks as well as [0004]-[0007] in the specification that their operation is critical for safe and reliable operation of a vehicle. Therefore, in order for the improvement to be able to be found within the claim and amount to significantly more, the claim must reflect operations of the vehicle. However, the claim does not recite controlling the operations of the vehicle and do not reflect the improvement as suggested by the applicant. As such, examiner finds that the amendments do not recite significantly more and merely furthers mental process and mathematical concept of claim 1 in finding particular points on a generated curve. As per the interview, examiner suggests, in order for the claim to reflect applicant’s argued improvements and amount to significantly more, to add practical use of control of a vehicle in some way, control movement of the object, or apply the calculated position in a practical technological process, i.e. controlling the operations, based on the identified abstract concepts, which would then integrate both the improvement and practical application.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of amended independent claim 1 under 35 USC 101 are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that amended independent claim 12 improves computer related technology pertaining to localization of moving objects as it is directed to how to use a reference line that comprises a plurality of pre-computed points and two closest points are used to identify a more precise point on the reference line.
However, examiner argues that amended independent claim 12 does not recite how the resulting point is used to provide an improvement to localization technology. Instead, the amended merely further specify the mathematical process used to determine the closest pre-computed point. The identifying points, computing and comparing distances, selecting second closest points, and computing a point between closest and second closest further provides mathematical concepts involving distances, comparisons, and geometric relations between points. In addition, as mentioned above, merely mentioning localizing a moving object does not itself establish a technological improvement and examiner suggests again to apply the calculated localization in a practical technological process or use it to control moving object or a vehicle.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of amended independent claim 12 under 35 USC 101 are unpersuasive.
4. Applicant argues that Reshef (US 20220097714A1) fails to teach of amended independent claim 1 wherein a plurality of points in a sequence of points are not on a curve generated that passes through the sequence of points.
However, amended independent claim 1 requires further search and consideration and therefore applicant’s arguments are moot. Upon further search, examiner found Reshef in view of Curtis et al. (US 20130090802A1) teaches the amended independent claim 1.
Reshef still teaches storing series of waypoints that includes position in x and y, i.e. sequence of point with Cartesian coordinates, where waypoints represents a road and the road is represented as spline/curve, generating points on that curve, and obtaining Cartesian coordinates for points on the curve (see [0028]-[0030] and [0034]-[0037]). Reshef further teaches localizing a vehicle through obtaining Cartesian position of the vehicle, determining nearest neighboring waypoints to a source point, and projection is used to find estimate nearest first and second points on a curve (see Figs 4-6, [0032], [0035]-[0036], and [0040]).
Reshef does not teach: wherein a plurality of points in the sequence of points are not on the curve.
However, Curtis teaches acquired waypoints do not necessarily all lie on a smooth curve and waypoints that loses their usefulness in a curve fitting process are cropped or not part of the curve as seen on Fig. 4, i.e. plurality of points in a sequence of point are not on a curve (see Figs 3-4, [0019]-[0021] and [0023]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify stored series of waypoints in x and y positions where waypoints represents a road and the road is represented as a curve, and points are generated on the curve and obtaining Cartesian coordinates for the points on the curve, as well as localizing through a vehicle through obtaining Cartesian position of a vehicle, determining nearest neighboring waypoints to a source point, and projection is used to find nearest first and second points on a curve of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Curtis such that acquired waypoints do not necessarily all lie on a smooth curve and waypoints that are not useful during a curve fitting process are not part of the curve, i.e. plurality of points in a sequence of points are not on a curve.
The motivation to combine stored waypoints of Reshef that represents a road which is represented as a curve with Curtis’s curve fitting process of waypoints not useful are not part of the curve is that, as indicated by Curtis, this would allow for pre-processed waypoints (including filtering) to improve accuracy and polynomial sections using waypoints are fitted together in a smooth curve (see [0004]-[0031]).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of amended independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102 are moot.
Applicant argues amended independent claim 17 recites features of amended independent claim 1 and is patentable for the same reasons given as claim 1.
However, amended independent claim 1 was rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Curtis as shown above. Therefore, amended independent claim 17, which recites features of amended claim 1, is also unpatentable over Reshef in view of Curtis and argument regarding amended claim 17 is moot.
Applicant argues that Reshef fails to teach amended independent claim 12 where a closest point on a reference line is determined and then consider a following point and a previous point to that closest point.
However, amended independent claim 12 requires further search and consideration and therefore applicant’s arguments are moot. Upon further search, examiner found Reshef in view of Yabushita et al. (US 20090099717A1) teaches the amended independent claim 12.
Reshef teaches sensing source point in a Cartesian reference frame, i.e. position of a moving object, using first and second closest waypoints from multiple waypoints along a curve and nearest waypoints to source points clustered together, i.e. closest point on a reference line to a position, and determining a first estimate point on a curve using a projection line that intersects a line segment between two waypoints, i.e. finding a point between two first and second closest points that is on a reference line (see [0027], [0032]-[0035], and Figs 4-5). Note also that Reshef also uses a controller with a processor and a computer readable storage device or media, i.e. a computing device, to perform the method, which is identifying, computing and selecting points and distances (see [0023]-[0024]).
Reshef does not particularly teach: wherein identifying the second closest point comprises:
identifying a following point, to the closest point, on the reference line and computing a first distance from the position to the following point;
identifying a previous point, to the closest point, on the reference line and computing a second distance from the position to the previous point;
selecting the following point or the previous point as the second closest point based on a comparison of the first distance and the second distance.
However, Yabushita teaches determining distances from a robot, i.e. moving object, position A to path nodes until the distances to all the nodes are obtained, i.e. distances from position to points that includes following and previous points, then considers two nodes (adjacent nodes) adjacent to a closest node and selecting between candidate path points based on which is closer to the point A, i.e. selecting point based on distances to a position of moving object (see [0049]-[0050]). Note also that Yabushita determines points before and after the closest point are set (see [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify sensing source point in a Cartesian reference frame, finding nearest waypoint from multiple waypoints along a curve, i.e. a reference line, and determining a first estimate point between a first and second nearest way points through projection of a line onto a line segment between the two points on the curve of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Yabushita such that the second closest point is determined through points before and after the closest point where selecting a point is based on which is closer to point A, i.e. selecting a point before or after closest point based on distances to a position of moving object.
The motivation to combine Reshef’s finding nearest waypoint and determining a point between first and second closest points with determining second point based on which of points before and after the closest point is closer to point A is that, as indicated by Yabushita, this would allow for accurate target path tracking, accurate tracking motion of a mobile unit, and control the mobile unit in a manner suitable for moving speed (see [0007]-[0023]).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of amended independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102 are moot.
5. Applicant argues that dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 19-21 are allowable at least for the same reasons given above for the independent claims 1, 12, and 17.
However, amended independent claims 1, 12, and 17 have been fully rejected as stated above and therefore dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 19-21 are also fully rejected due to their dependency of the independent claims 1, 12, and 17. In addition, dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 19-21 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 separately as shown in previous Office Action and in the rejections shown below.
Thus, applicant’s argument regarding claims 2-11, 13-16, and 19-21 are unpersuasive.
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.
6. 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, wherein a plurality of points in the sequence of points are not on the curve [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, localizing a moving object using the curve by [mental process/mathematical concept/step]:
determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of the 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 as well as points not 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, wherein a plurality of points in the sequence are not on the curve [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, localizing a moving object using the curve by [mental process/mathematical concept/step]:
determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of the 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 and 21 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, identifying a point, determining a longitudinal distance and lateral offset along and relative to the curve, reconstructing Cartesian coordinates, and verifying the reconstructed Cartesian coordinates, 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.
7. 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 for localizing a moving object, the method comprising:
determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of the moving object [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
identifying the closest point, on a reference line that comprises a plurality of pre-computed points that includes the closest point, to the position [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
identifying the second closest point, on the reference line to the position, wherein the plurality of pre-computed points includes the second closest point [mental process/mathematical concept/step],
wherein identifying the second closest point comprises:
identifying a following point, to the closest point, on the reference line and computing a first distance from the position to the following point [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
identifying a previous point, to the closest point, on the reference line and computing a second distance from the position to the previous point [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
selecting the following point or the previous point as the second closest point based on a comparison of the first distance and the second distance [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. For example, “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, finding following and previous closest points to the closest points, and finding a point in between closest points. In addition, “selecting…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person observing and choosing a point closer to the 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 for localizing a moving object, the 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 that comprises a plurality of pre-computed points that includes the closest point, to the position [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
identifying the second closest point, on the reference line to the position, wherein the plurality of pre-computed points includes the second closest point [mental process/mathematical concept/step],
wherein identifying the second closest point comprises:
identifying a following point, to the closest point, on the reference line and computing a first distance from the position to the following point [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
identifying a previous point, to the closest point, on the reference line and computing a second distance from the position to the previous point [mental process/mathematical concept/step];
selecting the following point or the previous point as the second closest point based on a comparison of the first distance and the second distance [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 § 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.
8. Claim 1, 4-6, 9, 17, and 19 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reshef et al. (US 20220097714A1) in view of Curtis et al. (US 20130090802A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reshef 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, localizing a moving object using the curve by: determining Cartesian coordinates of a position of the 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.).
Reshef does not teach: wherein a plurality of points in the sequence of points are not on the curve.
However, Curtis teaches acquired waypoints do not necessarily all lie on a smooth curve and waypoints that loses their usefulness in a curve fitting process are cropped or not part of the curve as seen on Fig. 4, i.e. plurality of points in a sequence of point are not on a curve (see Figs 3-4, [0019]-[0021] and [0023]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify stored series of waypoints in x and y positions where waypoints represents a road and the road is represented as a curve, and points are generated on the curve and obtaining Cartesian coordinates for the points on the curve, as well as localizing through a vehicle through obtaining Cartesian position of a vehicle, determining nearest neighboring waypoints to a source point, and projection is used to find nearest first and second points on a curve of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Curtis such that acquired waypoints do not necessarily all lie on a smooth curve and waypoints that are not useful during a curve fitting process are not part of the curve, i.e. plurality of points in a sequence of points are not on a curve.
The motivation to combine stored waypoints of Reshef that represents a road which is represented as a curve with Curtis’s curve fitting process of waypoints not useful are not part of the curve is that, as indicated by Curtis, this would allow for pre-processed waypoints (including filtering) to improve accuracy and polynomial sections using waypoints are fitted together in a smooth curve (see [0004]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Reshef in view of Curtis 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 the new Cartesian coordinates generated for on the set of points (see Reshef [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 that have Cartesian position in which KD-tree must also be based on.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Reshef in view of Curtis teaches the method of Claim 4, 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 Reshef [0029] and [0040] where a set of waypoints are in Cartesian (x, y) and specifically indicates moving object position in Cartesian coordinates. See further Reshef [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, modified Reshef in view of Curtis 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 Reshef [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 Reshef [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 Reshef [0027] where it shows each source points parametrized within a road centered reference frame by a longitudinal positions. Further, in Reshef [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, modified Reshef in view of Curtis teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the particular point is the closest point on the curve to the position (see Reshef Fig. 4, [0032], and [0035]-[0036] as shown in claim 1.), the method further comprising:
determining a second closest point, on the curve, to the position (see Reshef [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 Reshef 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 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, localizing a moving object using the curve by (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.).
Reshef does not teach: wherein a plurality of points in the sequence of points are not on the curve.
However, Curtis teaches acquired waypoints do not necessarily all lie on a smooth curve and waypoints that loses their usefulness in a curve fitting process are cropped or not part of the curve as seen on Fig. 4, i.e. plurality of points in a sequence of point are not on a curve (see Figs 3-4, [0019]-[0021] and [0023]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify stored series of waypoints in x and y positions where waypoints represents a road and the road is represented as a curve, and points are generated on the curve and obtaining Cartesian coordinates for the points on the curve, as well as localizing through a vehicle through obtaining Cartesian position of a vehicle, determining nearest neighboring waypoints to a source point, and projection is used to find nearest first and second points on a curve of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Curtis such that acquired waypoints do not necessarily all lie on a smooth curve and waypoints that are not useful during a curve fitting process are not part of the curve, i.e. plurality of points in a sequence of points are not on a curve.
The motivation to combine stored waypoints of Reshef that represents a road which is represented as a curve with Curtis’s curve fitting process of waypoints not useful are not part of the curve is that, as indicated by Curtis, this would allow for pre-processed waypoints (including filtering) to improve accuracy and polynomial sections using waypoints are fitted together in a smooth curve (see [0004]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Reshef in view of Curtis teaches the one or more storage media of Claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computing devices (see Reshef [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 Reshef [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.
9. Claim 12 and 20 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Yabushita et al. (US 20090099717A1).
Regarding claim 12, Reshef teaches a method for localizing a moving object, the method comprising:
determining Cartesian coordinates of the 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 that comprises a plurality of pre-computed points that includes the closest point, 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, wherein the plurality of pre-computed points includes the second closest point (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, computing 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.).
Reshef does not particularly teach: wherein identifying the second closest point comprises:
identifying a following point, to the closest point, on the reference line and computing a first distance from the position to the following point;
identifying a previous point, to the closest point, on the reference line and computing a second distance from the position to the previous point;
selecting the following point or the previous point as the second closest point based on a comparison of the first distance and the second distance.
However, Yabushita teaches determining distances from a robot, i.e. moving object, position A to path nodes until the distances to all the nodes are obtained, i.e. distances from position to points that includes following and previous points, then considers two nodes (adjacent nodes) adjacent to a closest node and selecting between candidate path points based on which is closer to the point A, i.e. selecting point based on distances to a position of moving object (see [0049]-[0050]). Note also that Yabushita determines points before and after the closest point are set (see [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify sensing source point in a Cartesian reference frame, finding nearest waypoint from multiple waypoints along a curve, i.e. a reference line, and determining a first estimate point between a first and second nearest way points through projection of a line onto a line segment between the two points on the curve of Reshef by incorporating teaching of Yabushita such that the second closest point is determined through points before and after the closest point where selecting a point is based on which is closer to point A, i.e. selecting a point before or after closest point based on distances to a position of moving object.
The motivation to have finding a nearest waypoint and determining a point between first and second closest points with determining second point based on which of points before and after the closest point is closer to point A is that, as indicated by Yabushita, this would allow for accurate target path tracking, accurate tracking motion of a mobile unit, and control the mobile unit in a manner suitable for moving speed (see [0007]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Reshef in view of Yabushita 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 Reshef [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.).
10. Claim 2 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Curtis in further view of Ito et al. (US 20230135242A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Reshef in view of Curtis teaches the method of Claim 1,
Modified Reshef in view of Curtis does not teach: further comprising:
prior to generating the curve, smoothing the sequence of points using a low pass filter.
However, Ito 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 modified Reshef in view of Curtis 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]).
11. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Curtis in further view of Gataric (US 12051283B1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Reshef in view of Curtis teaches the method of Claim 1,
Modified Reshef in view of Curtis does not teach: further comprising:
prior to generating the curve, removing duplicate points from the sequence of points.
However, Gataric 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 as modified by Curtis 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]).
12. Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Curtis in further view of Peake (US 20080275602A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Reshef in view of Curtis teaches the method of Claim 1,
Reshef as modified by Curtis does not teach further comprising:
for each point in the set of points, defining a longitudinal distance value s that represents a distance along the curve from a beginning of the curve to that point;
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 coordinate;
generating a second cubic spline that maps, for each point in the set of points, the value s at said each point to a corresponding y coordinate.
However, Peake teaches calculating a linear distance along a poly-point path, i.e. defining for points along a path a longitudinal distance value representing distance along the path from its beginning, comprising of 2-D reference points and a number of straight lines substituted by parameterized cubic spline functions, which includes cubic spline fit of east to linear path distance and cubic spline fit of north to linear path distance, i.e. mapping longitudinal path-distance, which is s value, to x (east) and y (north) coordinates using respective cubic splines (see [0047] and Figs 1-3, [0028]-[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 as already modified by Curtis by incorporating teaching of Peake such that each point along the road curve is associated with a longitudinal path-distance value representing a distance along the curve from a beginning of the curve to that point, and the 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 Curtis and 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 Reshef [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.);
defining a third cubic spline that maps d to an x-offset and calculating an updated x coordinate based on the x coordinate, the d value, and a third cubic spline; defining a fourth cubic spline that maps d to an y-offset and 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; see further in Peake [0047]-[0050] and Figs 2-4 where it shows straight line segments are substituted by a set of 2-D parameterized cubic spline functions where separate cubic spline functions are for respective east, which is x component, and north, which is y component, with each cubic spline mapping a position value to a corresponding Cartesian component.);
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, as already modified by Curtis and Peak, by further 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 further apply Peake’s separate cubic spline functions for x and y components to Reshef’s lateral component d such that a third cubic spline maps d to an x-offset and a fourth cubic spline maps d to a y-offset for updating the Cartesian coordinates of the moving object, 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]).
13. Claim 10 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Curtis in further view of Peeters et al. (US 20110153267A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Reshef in view of Curtis 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 point; determining a fourth delta value that is a difference between a y-coordinate of the position and the y-coordinate of the closest point; 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 Reshef 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 Reshef [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.).
Modified Reshef in view of Curtis 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 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 modified Reshef in view of Curtis 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]).
14. Claim 13 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reshef in view of Yabushita in further view of Peeters et al. (US 20110153267A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Reshef in view of Yabushita 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 Reshef 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 Reshef [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.).
Modified Reshef in view of Yabushita 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 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, as already modified by Yabushita, 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
15. Claims 11, 14, 15, 16 and 21 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, 16 and 21 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.
In regards to claim 21, the claim recites:
“The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
determining, for the position, a longitudinal distance s along the curve and a lateral offset d relative to the curve;
reconstructing Cartesian coordinates from the s using splines that map the s to x- and y- coordinates and applying offsets based on d; and
verifying that the reconstructed Cartesian coordinates differ from the determined Cartesian coordinates by less than a particular percentage in both x and y directions, thereby providing distortion-free conversion.”
No single prior art reference has been found to anticipate these limitations particularly of “verifying that the reconstructed Cartesian coordinates differ from the determined Cartesian coordinates by less than a particular percentage in both x and y directions, thereby providing distortion-free conversion”, 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 21 is found to be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
16. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
17. 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 Burges 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
Prosecution Insights