DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on January 10, 2026.
No claims have been amended, canceled, or added.
Claims 1-27 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on March 13, 2026 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Also, the Information Disclosure Statement Size Fee – Written Assertion Under 37 CFR 1.98 that was filed on March 13, 2026 was reviewed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any of the judicial exceptions
Specifically, Applicant argues that “[s]tep d) of claim 1 requires generating an integrated navigation solution based on the obtained motion sensor data and the obtained absolute navigational information. At the least, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not construe the human mind as being capable of processing the raw output of the sensor assembly together with the absolute navigation information … which comprises hundreds or thousands of measurements per second in order to determine at least position and orientation of the device as required by the pending claim language. … So, the one of ordinary skill in the art knows very well and fully understands that the human mind is not capable of processing the motions sensor readings and the absolute navigation information and integrating them together to provide an integrated navigation solution that provides at least position and orientation output. The one of ordinary skill in the art also fully knows and understands that a human cannot do these operations with pen and paper either. These comprise at the very least thousands or tens-of thousands of operations that need to be performed per second contemporaneously, and need to be performed continuously for a long time (can be thousands of seconds or more), so this cannot be performed using pen and paper.” See Remarks filed January 10, 2026, pages 9-10.
Applicant further argues, “[l]ikewise, the step e) requires projecting radar measurements onto the output of integrated navigation solution, which represents hundreds or thousands of measurements at each epoch, and the Examiner has offered no justification as to how this could be performed in the human mind. This is not possible for the human minds, and this is well understood by the one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Remarks filed January 10, 2026, page 10.
Applicant continues arguing, “[f]inally, step f) requires building a map from the projected radar measurements and therefore compounds the complexity represented by the previous two steps. It must also be noted that Applicant’s claims require all three of these operations when one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any one alone is beyond the capacity of a human to perform mentally. Since Applicant’s system claims contain at least the same limitations, these remarks also fully apply to claims 21-27. On this basis alone, Applicant respectfully requests that the §101 rejection be withdrawn.” See Remarks filed January 10, 2026, page 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The precedent, as laid out in USPTO examples, provides guidance for interpreting claim limitations.
Each of the obtaining steps in the current application, a)-c), have been interpreted as additional elements that fall into the category of mere data gathering. The current claim language is analogous to Example 47, claim 2 in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Claim 2 is ineligible even though it involves a method of using an artificial neural network. Limitation (a) of Example 47, claim 2 states, “receiving, at a computer, continuous training data” and is categorized as “mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (‘whether the limitation is significant’). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.” See Explanation of Example 47, on page 8.
Considering the current claim, using the data that has been gathered, a person can, via a mental process, perform the remaining claim limitations, d)-f) using the data that was provided by the data gathering steps. A person can mentally determine a position and orientation information based on the motion of a moving device/platform, the absolute navigational information of the moving device/platform, and the generated radar measurements from the moving device/platform. Arguably, these steps are mentally performed by every driver driving a vehicle. Further, a person can mentally project the generated radar measurements onto the area around at least one route traversed by the moving device/platform, and mentally build a map for the area around at least one route traversed by the moving device/platform using the projected radar measurements. Looking to the USPTO guidance, these steps are analogous to the steps in Example 47, claim 2 that were found to be an abstract idea involving mental processes.
Similar to Example 47, claim 2, which determined that steps (b), (d), and (e) “fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.” See Explanation of Example 47, page 7. The Explanation continues, “step (b) recites discretizing continuous training data to generate input data by processes including rounding, binning, or clustering continuous data, which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, the claimed discretizing of continuous data encompasses observing continuous data and performing an evaluation, such as rounding the continuous data. Step (d) recites detecting one or more anomalies in a data set using the trained ANN. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the ‘detecting’ encompasses mental observations or evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind. For example, the claimed detecting of anomalies in a data set encompasses observing data in a data set and performing an evaluation by comparing anomalous and non-anomalous data. Step (e) recites analyzing the one or more detected anomalies using the trained ANN to generate anomaly data. Step (f) encompasses performing evaluation, judgment, and opinion to make a determination about detected anomalies. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the ‘analyzing’ encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.” See Explanation of Example 47, page 7.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes, based on the USPTO guidance, that the identified steps in the current claims do recite a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims represent integration into a practical application because of the inextricable linkage to the device.
Applicant argues that, “Applicant’s claims represent an improvement in computer-related or other technology and are implemented with a particular machine, at least in the form of the device that must experience movement in order to produce the motion sensor data upon which the integrated navigation solution is based. These are operations , along with the aspects of obtaining radar measurements (scanning the actual specific physical environment in which the moving platform moves), that cannot be performed by a generic computer. Building a map of the area using the projected radar measurements clearly represents a technological field and, given that this is the output of the claims, goes far beyond ‘generally linking’ the claim limitation to this field. Radar maps are clearly a highly technical field with many benefits and, importantly, reflect an actual physical environment. To further support Applicant’s contention that the claims are integrated into a practical application, it is noted that they are implemented with and therefore inextricably linked to a tangible and practical device.” See Remarks filed January 10, 2026, page 11.
Applicant goes on to argue, “The guidance regarding an inextricable linkage to a specific device provided by SiRF Technology Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010) is valid case law and dovetails with the PEG guidance. To summarize, SiRF demonstrates the patent eligibility of the claims if the machine imposes a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims. As quoted in the PEG guidance, it is not abstract when ‘an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.’ Here the device (as well as the platform that conveys it) are absolutely integral to the claims, as without the obtained sensor readings of the device, the integrated navigation solution cannot be derived. Applicant further submits that SiRF should not be interpreted as finding that the claims were patent eligible due to any particular characteristics or novelty associated with the GPS receiver, as the method claims at issue in that case recite only ‘a satellite signal receiver’ or ‘a GPS receiver’ without specifying any architectural details. Since GPS receivers were known and conventional when the patent at issue in SiRF were filed, this conclusion of the Federal Circuit must be interpreted as requiring only the linkage to a specific device, which Applicant’s pending claims clearly satisfy.” See Arguments in Response filed January 10, 2026, page 11.
Further, Applicant argues, “as discussed above and previously, the device is absolutely integral because the sensor readings from which all of the claim operations depend are the result of specific motion experienced by the device. Without the device, and the specific motion it experiences due to being conveyed by the platform, the sensor readings cannot exist. Therefore, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner analysis that ‘receiving sensor readings from the device would equate to extra solution data activity.’ The tangible device must experience the unique motion that produces the sensor readings in order for the claims to have any meaning and Applicant respectfully submits this simply qualifies as the inextricable linkage required by SiRF and the MPEP guidance.” See Remarks in Response filed January 10, 2026 page 12.
Further, “[i]n reaching the conclusion under Prong II of the Step 2A, the Examiner characterizes the ‘additional limitations’ of claim 1, steps a), b) and c) as being ‘insignificant extra-solution activity that merely gather data to perform updating a map.” Addressing each in turn, Applicant first notes that obtaining motion sensor data as required by step a) necessarily requires the existence of the device with its sensor assembly to experience movement as it is being conveyed by the platform, from which the motion sensor data is generated, going well beyond simply gathering data. Likewise, step b)’s requirement of obtaining absolute navigational information for the platform requires the existence of the platform, with its unique position being represented by the navigational information. This also constitutes more than receiving data, the platform must have spatial existence and a specific geolocation for the absolute navigational information to be obtained. Similar reasoning also applies to step c) requirement of obtaining radar measurements because the platform must exist in an environment in order to produce the radar measurements that represent that specific environment. Importantly, all of these limitations should not be considered extra-solution activities since they are integral to the practice of the claims.” See Remarks in Response filed January 10, 2026 page 12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
The current claim limitations involve gathering information from sensors located on a moving platform at a very high level and are sensors that are commonly found on most vehicles. Limitation a) states, “obtaining motion sensor data from a sensor assembly of the device”. Limitation b) states, “obtaining absolute navigation al information for the platform”. Limitation c) states, “obtaining radar measurements from at least one radar of the platform”. Each of these limitations describe the sensors at a very high level and are sensors that are known to be on moving platforms, for example, a vehicle. The claim language for each of these types of sensors is not specific, and therefore, differs from the type of sensor that was at the heart of the patent at issue in SiRF.
Limitation d) states, “generating an integrated navigation solution based at least in part on the motion sensor data and the absolute navigational information, wherein the integrated navigation solution provides at least a position and orientation output”. This limitation requires determining a position and orientation based on the data generated by the motion sensor data and the absolute navigational information. This step, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, is done by every driver as they are driving any vehicle down the road, and is therefore considered to be a mental process.
Limitation e) states, “projecting the radar measurements onto the area from the position and orientation output of the integrated navigation solution”. The projecting radar measurements is interpreted as projecting the data gathered from the radar at the determined position and orientation onto an area, which is defined in the preamble as “an area around at least one route traversed by a moving platform”. This step can, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process. The data generated from the radar can be envisioned in the surrounding area from the determined position and orientation.
Similarly, limitation f) states, “building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements”. This step can also, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, be performed as a mental process or with using a pen and paper. The data that was gathered from the radar measurements can be recorded on a map to build the data points.
These claim limitations are performed using a generic computer or processor. Processors on vehicles are well-known and are considered generic computer processors within the technical area of vehicle controls and navigation. There is nothing in the current specification indicating that there is a particular special processor required to perform the data processing for the types of measurements being gathered and processed. Therefore, there is no unique or special attribute or significance related to the data from any of the generic sensors being gathered as a vehicle or platform is in motion.
These limitations do not amount to an improvement in computer technology. There is no indication that the processing is improving the functioning of the computer itself.
Under the current law, the claim is analyzed under a broadest reasonable interpretation. The analysis, according to the eligibility flowchart under the current Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), requires determining whether the claim recites an abstract idea. In analyzing the current independent claim 1, the limitations, “d) generating an integrated navigation solution based at least in part on the motion sensor data and the absolute navigational information, wherein the integrated navigation solution provides at least a position and orientation output; e) projecting the radar measurements onto the area from the position and orientation output of the integrated navigation solution; and f) building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements”, can be performed as mental processes or by a human using a pen and paper, and are therefore considered to be an abstract idea falling within the realm of a mental process. Further, the first three claim limitations, “a) obtaining motion sensor data from a sensor assembly of the device; b) obtaining absolute navigational information for the platform; [and] c) obtaining radar measurements from at least one radar of the platform” are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong II, nor do they amount to significantly more under Step 2B. There is nothing in dependent claims, 2-20, that falls within the realm of eligibility. The same reasoning is applied according to claims 21-27.
For these reasons, the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Breed does not build maps using radar measurements
Applicant argues, “[a]lthough the Examiner acknowledges this failure of Breed with regard to the claim limitation ‘building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements,’ it should be appreciated that the deficiency of this reference also extends to the earlier claim limitation of ‘projecting the radar measurements onto the area.’ Here, the Examiner interprets Breed as disclosing this aspect in paragraph [0023], but this only discloses the irrelevant teaching of deriving location and orientation of the vehicle. Specifically, Breed teaches the use of ‘radar and reflectors’ for positioning and one of ordinary skill in the art knows that this is an infrastructure solution that depends on the known position of the reflectors to derive the position of the vehicle (further explanation is found in Breed’s paragraph [‘0096]). In contrast, Applicant’s claim limitation requires determining position and orientation first (based on the integrated navigation solution determined from absolute navigational information and the motion sensor data) and then projecting the radar measurements onto that determined position and orientation.” See Remarks in Response filed on January 10, 2026 page 13.
Applicant further argues, “[i]nstead, it must be recognized that Breed is directed to mapping strategies using visual information, such as obtained from an optical sensor like a camera. This is emphasized in Breed’s abstract, which states the device includes ‘a camera positioned to obtain unobstructed images of an area exterior of the vehicle,’ with the control system that ‘provides a location of the camera and a direction in which the camera is imaging.’ Critically, it must be appreciated that radar measurements are not visual images comparable to the samples provided by an optical sensor such as a camera. Therefore, Breed fails to disclose anything that correlates to projecting radar measurements onto a determined position and orientation.” See Remarks in Response filed on January 10, 2026 page 13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim limitation discussed by Applicant above is, “e) projecting the radar measurements onto the area from the position and orientation output of the integrated navigation solution”. Breed discloses, in [0023] that “…the present inventions make use of … radar… to derive the location and orientation of the vehicle for use in a system for obtaining images for later processing to create maps.” Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Applicant’s claim language does not limit the type of radar sensor used, therefore, Breed clearly states the use of a radar sensor in the above excerpt, which discloses the radar requirement of the current invention. Further, radar data can broadly be interpreted as image data. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that image data does not include radar data.
Breed also discloses projecting the radar measurements onto the area from the position and orientation output in real time for later processing to create maps. The Lessmann reference is used for its disclosure of building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements, see Lessmann [0009] “every scan of a current set of (e.g., radar) scans can be projected into the closest map element.”
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues that Breed does not provide an integrated navigation solution.
The Applicant argues that “Applicant’s claims require using the motion sensor data and the absolute navigational information to generate an integrated navigation solution. As explained in paragraphs [0077] and [0078], integration of absolute navigational information with motion sensor data occurs at a fundamental level, such as through the use of state estimation techniques. In contrast, Breed only discloses in paragraph [0009] that GPS can be used to calibrate accelerometers or gyroscopes. Moreover, the ‘integrated output’ of Breed cited by the Examiner does not refer to integration of absolute navigational information but rather to the mathematical operation by which accelerometer data representing acceleration is singly integrated to obtain speed or doubly integrated to obtain distance. This is a much simpler operation that is very different from an integrated navigation solution integrating absolute navigational information with motion sensor data.” See Remarks in Response filed on January 10, 2026 page 14.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation at issue is, “d) generating an integrated navigation solution based at least in part on the motion sensor data and the absolute navigational information, wherein the integrated navigation solution provides at least a position and orientation output”. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim itself defines that the integrated navigation solution provides a position and orientation output based at least in part on the motion sensor data and the absolute navigational information. Breed, in [0009], discloses, “inexpensive inertial MEMS devices are used but are calibrated frequently using GPS and rather than self-testing the accelerometer, the integrated output of the accelerometer is compared with GPS location and angular orientation of the vehicle and the discrepancy is used to modify acceleration values, for accelerometers, and angular velocities for gyroscopes, and this data is used to determine position and/or angular orientation of the vehicle.” This excerpt from Breed clearly discloses that position and orientation of the vehicle are output based at least in part on motion sensor data, including the inertial MEMS devices, and the absolute navigational information, including the GPS. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues that Lessman does not provide the teaching missing from Breed
Applicant argues that, “the Examiner acknowledges Breed does not teach the claim limitation ‘building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements.’ As such, this rejection necessarily depends on Lessman compensating for this deficiency. To that end, the Examiner cites paragraph [0009] of Lessmann, which discloses ‘every scan of a current set of (e.g. radar) scans can be projected into the closest map element.’ However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the operation being performed by Lessman is map matching, in which the map already exists and the map elements are already known. Indeed, the very title of Lessman (‘Method for Determining the Position of a Vehicle’) makes clear that is focus its positioning and not map building. Further, Lessmann’s paragraph [0020] makes it clear that ‘the predefined map comprises a definition of a plurality of spatial segments, each of the spatial segments representing a part of the map environment and being assigned to a respective one of the plurality of elements.’ Correspondingly, it is clear that for Lessman, the map is an input rather than being an output as required by Applicant’s claims. Thus, Lessman uses radar measurements only for matching with an existing map to determine vehicle position and does not supply the missing teaching of building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements.’ Since Breed admittedly does not provide this teaching, the combination of art cited by the Examiner fails to suggest each and every limitation of the pending independent claims and as a result, the § 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 12, 21-23, 26 and 27 should be withdrawn.” See Remarks in Response filed on January 10, 2026 on pages 14-15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lessmann discloses projected radar measurements that build a map for the area as illustrated in Figure 7 compared to Figure 6. The radar measurement data is projected and mapped out, which is then compared to a known map. See Lessmann Figures 6 and 7. Therefore, Lessmann does disclose, “building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements.”
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding Claims 4, 5, and 24
Applicant argues that the “Examiner has rejected these claims under 35 USC § 103 as purportedly being unpatentable over Breed and Lessman in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0404843 to Imai (Imai). Although Applicant respectfully submits that this rejection has insufficient basis based on the deficiencies of the primary references as discussed above, it is further noted that these dependent claims are directed to the concept of a determined confidence. As explained in paragraph [0112] of Applicant’s specification, this value refers to how accurate a subsequent position determination should be considered when subsequently using the map that is built according to the independent claims and should be considered a gauge of the quality of the map. Like Lessman, Imai is concerned with positioning, in particular map matching using Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) techniques. As is well known, map matching involves a fundamental comparison of measurements to a map. Applicant’s determined confidence is information on the map side of the comparison, such that it represents how accurate a position determination based on a subsequent match to the map is likely to be and critically, it is derived before that subsequent position is determined. Conversely, the teachings of Imai cited by the Examiner (paragraph [0039]), refer to operations on the measurement side. Specifically, Imai teaches that certain measurements may not be included in the matching because they interfere with accuracy so that Imai’s correction is to prevent errors on the measurement side. Moreover, as the very name requires, in SLAM, the localization is simultaneous with mapping and conversely, these dependent Applicant’s claims are directed to a ‘subsequently’ derived position (as a subsequent time after the map is built), rendering Imai’s teachings irrelevant.” See Remarks in Response filed January 10, 2026 on page 16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Imai discloses, in [0039] preventing the generation of measurement points that should not be generated based on an error in environmental map data and to prevent deterioration in the accuracy of the position/orientation estimation result due to measurement points generated based on such error, which impacts subsequent calculations. The beginning of paragraph [0039] states, “in the present exemplary embodiment, local correction processing that is completed in a short period of time is performed prior to the pose graph optimization. Thus, even if it takes a long time for pose graph optimization, it is possible to prevent generation of redundant measurement points and to prevent deterioration in the accuracy of position/orientation estimation when environmental map data is used.” As a result, the initial SLAM processing impacts the accuracy of subsequent processing. Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that the Imai reference discloses, “further comprising determining a confidence for a subdivision of the area of the map built based at least in part on the plurality of position and orientation outputs, wherein the determined confidence is representing the potential accuracy for a position output of another integrated navigation solution that will be derived subsequently using the built map.”
Claims 6 and 7
Applicants argue that the “Examiner has rejected these claims under 35 USC 103 as purportedly being unpatentable over Breed, Lessman and Imai in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0178655 to Shikimachi (Shikimachi). Again, these claims are patentable at the least by virtue of their dependence on the independent claims which are not taught by the primary references. However, a further distinction is that Shikimachi, like Lessman and Imai, is focused on positioning rather than map building and therefore does not provide relevant teachings regarding the aspect of map building represented by the claims, namely the additional requirements regarding the determined confidence.” See Remarks in Response filed on January 10, 2026 on page 16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because it has been established that the primary references do disclose the claim limitations, as laid out above. Further, a claim limitation in the current application requires the determination of position and orientation information. Also, the Shikimachi reference discloses in cited paragraph [0021] that the GNSS calculates continuous positioning data to determine the accuracy of the data. The absolute navigational information, according to the current claim limitations, is used initially for purposes of determining position and orientation output. The primary references disclose the map building limitation. Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that the Shikimachi reference is relevant to the current claim limitations.
Claim 8
Applicants argue that the “Examiner has rejected this claim under 35 USC 103 as purportedly being unpatentable over Breed, Lessman and Imai in further view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 111461245 to Zhang et al. (Zhang). Once more, this claim is patentable at the least by virtue of its dependence on claim 1. Furthermore, Applicant repeats the observations that this reference relates to positioning rather and not map building. Consequently, Zhang also fails to provide relevant teachings regarding the determining confidence for areas of the map as it is built. Indeed, like Imai, Zhang employs SLAM which excludes the future uses of the map specified by Applicant’s claim. Even further, Zhang employs lidar which is not analogous to the radar measurements used by Applicant’s claims, as emphasized by the reliance of this reference on semantic laser as an input, which has no relevance to Applicant’s techniques.” See Remarks in Response filed on January 10, 2026 on page 16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because it has been established that the primary references do disclose the claim limitations, as laid out above. Further, with respect to the Zhang reference, the Examiner takes the position that the current claims do not specify a particular type of radar, and therefore, the radar sensor disclosed in the Zhang reference discloses, “wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on a geometrical shape that depends on a configuration of the at least one radar for the platform.”
Claim 9
Applicant argues that “Examiner has rejected this claim under 35 USC 103 as purportedly being unpatentable over Breed, Lessman and Imai in further view U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0178655 to Han et al. (Han). In addition to the same points regarding patentability at the least by virtue of dependence that fully apply, Han also fails to provide any relevant teachings regarding map building. The only commonality is the term ‘confidence,’ but Han relates to classification of tracked objects and the Gaussian feature map disclosed by this reference is not a map built of an area.” See Remarks in Response filed on January 10, 2026 on pages 16-17.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because it has been established that the primary references do disclose the claim limitations, as laid out above. Further, the Han reference is used for its disclosure of the current claim limitation, “… wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on a number of features detected … .” There is no specific requirements limiting how the confidence is detected. Also, Han discloses a “candidate area” which is being interpreted as a map area. Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that Han discloses the above identified claim limitation.
Claims 10, 11, 13-20 and 25
Applicant argues that these claims are patentable at least by virtue of their dependence as this supplemental reference does not provide the teachings missing from the primary references against the independent claims discussed above.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because it has been established that the primary references do disclose the claim limitations, as laid out above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Claim 21 is directed to a system (i.e., an apparatus).
Therefore, claims 1 and 21 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim (representing claim 21) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for building a map for an area around at least one route traversed by a moving platform using an integrated navigation solution for a device within the moving platform, the method comprising:
obtaining motion sensor data from a sensor assembly of the device;
obtaining absolute navigational information for the platform;
obtaining radar measurements from at least one radar of the platform;
generating an integrated navigation solution based at least in part on the motion sensor data and the absolute navigational information, wherein the integrated navigation solution provides at least a position and orientation output;
projecting the radar measurements onto the area from the position and orientation output of the integrated navigation solution; and
building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompass a person performing the step either mentally or with a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for building a map for an area around at least one route traversed by a moving platform using an integrated navigation solution for a device within the moving platform, the method comprising:
obtaining motion sensor data from a sensor assembly of the device;
obtaining absolute navigational information for the platform;
obtaining radar measurements from at least one radar of the platform;
generating an integrated navigation solution based at least in part on the motion sensor data and the absolute navigational information, wherein the integrated navigation solution provides at least a position and orientation output;
projecting the radar measurements onto the area from the position and orientation output of the integrated navigation solution; and
building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining motion sensor data from a sensor assembly of the device”; “obtaining absolute navigational information for the platform”; and “obtaining radar measurements from at least one radar of the platform”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely gather data to perform updating a map. In particular, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtaining motion sensor data from a sensor assembly of the device”; “obtaining absolute navigational information for the platform”; and “obtaining radar measurements from at least one radar of the platform”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The additional limitations of “obtaining motion sensor data from a sensor assembly of the device”; “obtaining absolute navigational information for the platform”; and “obtaining radar measurements from at least one radar of the platform”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-27 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12, 21-23, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, et al. (Publication US 2015/0127239 A1), in view of Lessmann, et al. (Publication US 2021/0164800 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Breed” and “Lessmann”.)
As per claim 1 (representative of claim 21), Breed discloses a method for building a map for an area around at least one route traversed by a moving platform using an integrated navigation solution for a device within the moving platform, the method comprising:
obtaining motion sensor data from a sensor assembly of the device [see at least Breed [0009] "...inexpensive inertial MEMS devices are used … the integrated output of the accelerometer”];
obtaining absolute navigational information for the platform [see at least Breed [0009] "...compared with GPS location and angular orientation of the vehicle…."];
obtaining radar measurements from at least one radar of the platform [see at least Breed [0023] "...the present inventions make use of GPS satellite location technology, and can also employ the use of other technologies such as ... radar ..., to derive the location and orientation of the vehicle for use in a system for obtaining images for later processing to create maps..."];
generating an integrated navigation solution based at least in part on the motion sensor data and the absolute navigational information, wherein the integrated navigation solution provides at least a position and orientation output [see at least Breed [0009] "...inexpensive inertial MEMS devices are used but are calibrated frequently using GPS and rather than self-testing the accelerometer, the integrated output of the accelerometer is compared with GPS location and angular orientation of the vehicle and the discrepancy is used to modify acceleration values, for accelerometers, and angular velocities for gyroscopes, and this data is used to determine position and/or angular orientation of the vehicle."];
projecting the radar measurements onto the area from the position and orientation output of the integrated navigation solution [see at least Breed [0023] "...the present inventions make use of ...radar … to derive the location and orientation of the vehicle for use in a system for obtaining images for later processing to create maps…"; [0085] "...to the extent that other information can be made available, the map can be more rapidly improved. Such information can come from other sensors such as laser radar, ... radar or other ranging or distance measurement devices or systems. Images from one or more probe vehicles 16 can be combined using appropriate software to help create the three-dimensional representation of the scene."]; and
building a map for the area using the … radar measurements [see at least Breed [0023] "...the present inventions make use of ...radar … to derive the location and orientation of the vehicle for use in a system for obtaining images for later processing to create maps… ."]
Breed fails to disclose … building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements. However, Lessmann teaches this limitation [see at least Lessmann [0009] "every scan of a current set of (e.g. radar) scans can be projected into the closest map element … .”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Breed to use … building a map for the area using the projected radar measurements as disclosed in Lessmann with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved accuracy of the matching and hence an improved accuracy of the determined position. [See at least Lessmann [0056].]
As per claim 2 (representative of claim 22), the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Breed discloses … wherein building the map comprises aggregating projected radar measurements for a plurality of position and orientation outputs of integrated navigation solutions along the at least one route [see at least Breed [0049] "FIG. 2 illustrates a self-contained unit, 100, having a housing which can be retrofitted onto a large number of probe vehicles....these units 100 can be retrofitted onto a fleet of possibly government-owned vehicles to initiate the map creation process."; [0064] "Remote station 14 can create and maintain a map database from the information transmitted by the probe vehicles 16. When a section of roadway was first traversed by such a probe vehicle 16, the remote station can request that a large number of images be sent from the probe vehicle 16...Additional images can be request from other probe vehicles..."; [0071] "...an accurate map database 12 can be created and continuously verified through the use of probe vehicles 16 and a remote station 14 that creates and updates the map database 12."; [0023] "...the present inventions make use of ...radar … to derive the location and orientation of the vehicle for use in a system for obtaining images for later processing to create maps… ."]
As per claim 3 (representative of claim 23), the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Breed discloses … further comprising aggregating projected radar measurements for at least one of:
i) a plurality of position and orientation outputs of integrated navigation solutions along a plurality of routes [see at least Breed [0009] "...inexpensive inertial MEMS devices are used but are calibrated frequently using GPS and rather than self-testing the accelerometer, the integrated output of the accelerometer is compared with GPS location and angular orientation of the vehicle and the discrepancy is used to modify acceleration values, for accelerometers, and angular velocities for gyroscopes, and this data is used to determine position and/or angular orientation of the vehicle."; [0071] "...an accurate map database 12 can be created and continuously verified through the use of probe vehicles 16 and a remote station 14 that creates and updates the map database 12."];
ii) a plurality of position and orientation outputs of integrated navigation solutions from a plurality of moving platforms [see at least Breed [0075] "As the vehicle 16 moves, the uncorrected GPS position calculations can be compared to the position calculations made by the IMU 8 after the IMU 8 has been corrected based on consecutive GPS readings providing the same satellites area used...a moving receiver can also be capable of this process and therefore a properly constructed algorithm can result in the vehicle position being determinable with high accuracy even though it is moving."[0071] "...an accurate map database 12 can be created and continuously verified through the use of probe vehicles 16 and a remote station 14 that creates and updates the map database 12."]; and
iii) a plurality of position and orientation outputs of integrated navigation solutions from a plurality of moving platforms along a plurality of routes [see at least Breed [0075] "As the vehicle 16 moves, the uncorrected GPS position calculations can be compared to the position calculations made by the IMU 8 after the IMU 8 has been corrected based on consecutive GPS readings providing the same satellites area used...a moving receiver can also be capable of this process and therefore a properly constructed algorithm can result in the vehicle position being determinable with high accuracy even though it is moving."[0071] "...an accurate map database 12 can be created and continuously verified through the use of probe vehicles 16 and a remote station 14 that creates and updates the map database 12."
As per claim 12, the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Breed discloses … wherein the at least one route is configured to provide a desired coverage of the area [see at least Breed [0064] "Remote station 14 can create and maintain a map database from the information transmitted by the probe vehicles 16. When a section of roadway was first traversed by such a probe vehicle 16, the remote station can request that a large number of images be sent from the probe vehicle 16...Additional images can be request from other probe vehicles..."; [0071] "...an accurate map database 12 can be created and continuously verified through the use of probe vehicles 16 and a remote station 14 that creates and updates the map database 12."]
As per claim 26, the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 21.
Breed discloses … wherein the sensor assembly includes an accelerometer and a gyroscope [see at least Breed [0009] "In the present invention, inexpensive inertial MEMS devices are used but are calibrated frequently using GPS and rather than self-testing the accelerometer, the integrated output of the accelerometer is compared with GPS location and angular orientation of the vehicle and the discrepancy is used to modify acceleration values, for accelerometers, and angular velocities for gyroscopes, and this data is used to determine position and/or angular orientation of the vehicle."; [0012] "The IMU can be designed using three accelerometers and three gyroscopes as in the conventional IMU... ."]
As per claim 27, the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 21.
Breed discloses … wherein the sensor assembly is implemented as a Micro Electro Mechanical System (MEMS) [see at least Breed [0009] “In the present invention, inexpensive inertial MEMS devices are used but are calibrated frequently using GPS and rather than self-testing the accelerometer, the integrated output of the accelerometer is compared with GPS location and angular orientation of the vehicle and the discrepancy is used to modify acceleration values, for accelerometers, and angular velocities for gyroscopes, and this data is used to determine position and/or angular orientation of the vehicle.” ]
Claims 4-5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, in view of Lessmann, and Imai (Publication US 2021/0404843 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Imai”.)
As per claim 4 (representative of claim 24), the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 2 and 3.
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … further comprising determining a confidence for a subdivision of the area of the map built based at least in part on the plurality of position and orientation outputs, wherein the determined confidence is representing the potential accuracy for a position output of another integrated navigation solution that will be derived subsequently using the built map. However, Imai teaches this limitation [see at least Imai [0039] "...it is possible to prevent generation of measurement points that should not be generated based on an error in environmental map data and to prevent deterioration in the accuracy of the position/orientation estimation result due to measurement points generated based on such an error."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … further comprising determining a confidence for a subdivision of the area of the map built based at least in part on the plurality of position and orientation outputs, wherein the determined confidence is representing the potential accuracy for a position output of another integrated navigation solution that will be derived subsequently using the built map as disclosed in Imai with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the accuracy of position/orientation calculations. [See at least Imai [0121].]
As per claim 5, the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … further comprising determining an uncertainty for the integrated navigation solution of claim 1, wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on the determined uncertainty. However, Imai teaches this limitation [see at least Imai [0039] "...it is possible to prevent generation of measurement points that should not be generated based on an error in environmental map data and to prevent deterioration in the accuracy of the position/orientation estimation result due to measurement points generated based on such an error."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … further comprising determining an uncertainty for the integrated navigation solution of claim 1, wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on the determined uncertainty as disclosed in Imai with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving the accuracy of position/orientation calculations. [See at least Imai [0121].]
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, in view of Lessmann, Imai, and Shikimachi (Publication US 2019/0178655 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Shikimachi”.)
As per claim 6, the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
The combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai fails to disclose … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on the absolute navigational information. However, Shikimachi teaches this limitation [see at least Shikimachi [0021] "...the GNSS/DR portion 5 calculates continuous positioning data which is independent of right or wrong of the GNSS point positioning by combining a position and a direction of the GNSS point positioning according to a position accuracy and a direction accuracy of the GNSS point positioning with the relative locus shape, and outputs the calculated positioning data and the continuous relative locus shape to the controller 4. The positioning data output from the GNSS/DR portion 5 to the controller 4 is data in a geographic coordinate system."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai to use … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on the absolute navigational information as disclosed in Shikimachi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of simplified coordinate system transformation in creating an association with an actual distance or direction. [See at least Shikimachi [0020].]
As per claim 7, the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
The combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai fails to disclose … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on an accuracy of the absolute navigational information, wherein the accuracy of the absolute navigational information is used in at least one of the following: a) the accuracy of the absolute navigational information is used in aggregate from all routes traversing said subdivision of the map by moving platforms; and b) the accuracy of the absolute navigational information is used around said subdivision of the map from each separate route traversing said subdivision of the map. However, Shikimachi teaches these limitations:
wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on an accuracy of the absolute navigational information, wherein the accuracy of the absolute navigational information is used in at least one of the following [see at least Shikimachi [0021] "...the GNSS/DR portion 5 calculates continuous positioning data which is independent of right or wrong of the GNSS point positioning by combining a position and a direction of the GNSS point positioning according to a position accuracy and a direction accuracy of the GNSS point positioning with the relative locus shape, and outputs the calculated positioning data and the continuous relative locus shape to the controller 4. The positioning data output from the GNSS/DR portion 5 to the controller 4 is data in a geographic coordinate system."]:
a) the accuracy of the absolute navigational information is used in aggregate from all routes traversing said subdivision of the map by moving platforms [see at least Shikimachi [0058] It is noted that a flowchart or the processing of the flowchart in the present application includes multiple steps (also referred to as sections), each of which is represented, for instance, as A1. Further, each step can be divided into several sub-steps ... {Examiner note: this includes aggregating data from multiple vehicles}]; and
b) the accuracy of the absolute navigational information is used around said subdivision of the map from each separate route traversing said subdivision of the map.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai to use … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on an accuracy of the absolute navigational information, wherein the accuracy of the absolute navigational information is used in at least one of the following: a) the accuracy of the absolute navigational information is used in aggregate from all routes traversing said subdivision of the map by moving platforms; and b) the accuracy of the absolute navigational information is used around said subdivision of the map from each separate route traversing said subdivision of the map as disclosed in Shikimachi with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of simplified coordinate system transformation in creating an association with an actual distance or direction. [See at least Shikimachi [0020].]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, in view of Lessmann, Imai, and Zhang, et al. (Publication CN 111461245 A) (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”.)
As per claim 8, the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
The combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai fails to disclose … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on a geometrical shape that depends on a configuration of the at least one radar for the platform. However, Zhang teaches this limitation [see at least Zhang p. 6 "...then, dividing the two-dimensional point cloud read by the single-line laser radar based on the geometrical characteristic; then matching the bounding box and the point cloud; dividing the matched point cloud; combining the semantic type and confidence coefficient corresponding to the bounding box into semantic laser; then using the semantic laser as input; using laser SLAM algorithm to construct two-dimensional grid map; accumulating the semantic confidence of each category in the grid; calculating the semantic category with the maximum confidence level when the sub-graph is constructed; at last, using the back end of SLAM to optimize the global pose of the semantic, clustering the grid containing the clear semantic type, generating the global consistent semantic map".]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai to use … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on a geometrical shape that depends on a configuration of the at least one radar for the platform as disclosed in Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of richer map information using existing technology. [See Zhang at least page 2].]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, in view of Lessmann, Imai, and Han, et al. (Publication US 2024/0104749 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Han”.)
As per claim 9, the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Breed discloses …wherein the determined...subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on … features detected using the projected radar measurements [See at least Breed [0064] "Remote station 14 can create and maintain a map database from the information transmitted by the probe vehicles 16. When a section of roadway was first traversed by such a probe vehicle 16, the remote station can request that a large number of images be sent from the probe vehicle 16...Additional images can be request from other probe vehicles..."; [0071] "...an accurate map database 12 can be created and continuously verified through the use of probe vehicles 16 and a remote station 14 that creates and updates the map database 12."; [0023] "...the present inventions make use of ...radar … to derive the location and orientation of the vehicle for use in a system for obtaining images for later processing to create maps… ."]
The combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai fails to disclose … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on a number of features detected … . However, Han teaches this limitation [see at least Han [0089] "...The candidate area may include information about the parameters of the Gaussian distribution selected based on the confidence information. For example, when a specific number of anchors are selected in order of high confidence based on the class feature map (Cls Map), the candidate area information may include a parameter set of Gaussian distribution corresponding to each selected anchor."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai to use … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on a number of features detected … as disclosed in Han with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of tracking objects in real time. [See at least Han [0004], [0007].]
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, in view of Lessmann, Imai, and Stahlin, et al. (Publication DE 10 2016 214 257 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Stahlin”.)
As per claim 10, the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Breed discloses … wherein the determined … subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on routes traversed by moving platforms [see at least Breed [0049] "FIG. 2 illustrates a self-contained unit, 100, having a housing which can be retrofitted onto a large number of probe vehicles....these units 100 can be retrofitted onto a fleet of possibly government-owned vehicles to initiate the map creation process."; [0064] "Remote station 14 can create and maintain a map database from the information transmitted by the probe vehicles 16. When a section of roadway was first traversed by such a probe vehicle 16, the remote station can request that a large number of images be sent from the probe vehicle 16...Additional images can be request from other probe vehicles..."; [0071] "...an accurate map database 12 can be created and continuously verified through the use of probe vehicles 16 and a remote station 14 that creates and updates the map database 12."; [0023] "...the present inventions make use of ...radar … to derive the location and orientation of the vehicle for use in a system for obtaining images for later processing to create maps… ."]
The combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai fails to disclose … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on routes traversed by moving platforms. However, Stahlin teaches this limitation [see at least Stahlin pp. 3-4 "... the updated map is subdivided into regions, each of which is assigned a measure of confidence, which is increased in a respective update. This allows the confidence measure to be used to estimate how trustworthy a particular area in the updated map is. If it has already been frequently updated, for example because the vehicle has already driven the corresponding route more frequently or has received corresponding data from other vehicles which have traveled the route, a high degree of confidence can indicate that the map is very trustworthy in this area."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai to use … wherein the determined confidence of the subdivision of the area of the map is based at least in part on routes traversed by moving platforms as disclosed in Stahlin with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improve an initial map. [See at least Stahlin page 3].]
As per claim 11, the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
The combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai fails to disclose … wherein the determined confidence is based at least in part on one of: i) all subdivisions of the area; ii) subdivisions of the area having detections determined from the projected radar measurements; and iii) subdivisions of the area along the at least one route traversed by a moving platform. However, Stahlin teaches this limitation:
… wherein the determined confidence is based at least in part on one of: … iii) subdivisions of the area along the at least one route traversed by a moving platform [see at least Stahlin pp. 3-4 "... the updated map is subdivided into regions, each of which is assigned a measure of confidence, which is increased in a respective update. This allows the confidence measure to be used to estimate how trustworthy a particular area in the updated map is. If it has already been frequently updated, for example because the vehicle has already driven the corresponding route more frequently or has received corresponding data from other vehicles which have traveled the route, a high degree of confidence can indicate that the map is very trustworthy in this area."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Imai to use … wherein the determined confidence is based at least in part on one of: i) all subdivisions of the area; ii) subdivisions of the area having detections determined from the projected radar measurements; and iii) subdivisions of the area along the at least one route traversed by a moving platform as disclosed in Stahlin with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improve an initial map. [See at least Stahlin page 3].]
Claims 13-15, 19-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, in view of Lessmann, and Ahmed, et al. (Publication US 2020/0370920 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Ahmed”.)
As per claim 13, the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … further comprising, when generating the integrated navigation solution, rejecting the absolute navigational information when degradation is detected. However, Ahmed teaches this limitation [see at least Ahmed [0200] "To help illustrate these above concepts, a first error state system model and total-state system model examples are described below that integrate absolute navigational information with an error-state system model....The filter may optionally be programmed to automatically detect and assess the quality of GNSS information, and further provide a means of discarding or discounting degraded information."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … further comprising, when generating the integrated navigation solution, rejecting the absolute navigational information when degradation is detected as disclosed in Ahmed with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved map information using navigation solutions determined by integrating radar measurements with IMU-based systems. [See at least Ahmed [0005].]
As per claim 14, the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … wherein the integrated navigation solution is based on at least one of: i) forward processing; ii) backward processing; and iii) a combination of forward and backward processing. However, Ahmed teaches these limitations: … wherein the integrated navigation solution is based on at least one of: … iii) a combination of forward and backward processing [see at least Ahmed [0210] "...The background processing can run either on the same processor as the forward solution processing or on another processor that can communicate with the first processor and can read the saved data from a shared location. The outcome of the background processing solution can benefit the real-time navigation solution in its future run (i.e. real-time run after the background routine has finished running), for example, by having improved values for the parameters of the forward state estimation technique used for navigation in the present module."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … wherein the integrated navigation solution is based on at least one of: i) forward processing; ii) backward processing; and iii) a combination of forward and backward processing as disclosed in Ahmed with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved map information using navigation solutions determined by integrating radar measurements with IMU-based systems. [See at least Ahmed [0005].]
As per claim 15, the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … wherein the integrated navigation solution is based on a smoothing process. However, Ahmed teaches this limitation [see at least Ahmed [0208] "It is contemplated that the techniques of this disclosure can be used with a navigation solution that may ... assessment of each visible GNSS satellite when in tightly coupled mode, and finally possibly can be used with a backward smoothing module with any type of backward smoothing technique… ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … wherein the integrated navigation solution is based on a smoothing process as disclosed in Ahmed with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved map information using navigation solutions determined by integrating radar measurements with IMU-based systems. [See at least Ahmed [0005].]
As per claim 19 (representative of claim 25), the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Breed discloses … the … navigation solution output is used to project the radar measurements onto the area in order to build an improved map [see at least Breed [0023] "...the present inventions make use of ...radar … to derive the location and orientation of the vehicle for use in a system for obtaining images for later processing to create maps… ."]
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … wherein the output of the integrated navigation solution is improved based at least in part on the received motion sensor data using a nonlinear state estimation technique, wherein a prediction phase involving a system model is used to propagate predictions about a state of the platform and an update phase involving at least one measurement model relating measurements to the state is used to update the state of the platform, wherein the nonlinear state estimation technique comprises using a nonlinear measurement model for radar measurements, wherein integrating the motion sensor data and the radar measurements in the nonlinear state estimation technique is tightly-coupled, wherein the generating comprises: i) using the obtained motion sensor data in the nonlinear state estimation technique; and ii) integrating the radar measurements directly by updating the nonlinear state estimation technique using the nonlinear measurement models and the built map, and wherein the improved integrated navigation solution output is used to … build an improved map. However, Ahmed teaches these limitations:
… wherein the output of the integrated navigation solution is improved based at least in part on the received motion sensor data using a nonlinear state estimation technique, wherein a prediction phase involving a system model is used to propagate predictions about a state of the platform and an update phase involving at least one measurement model relating measurements to the state is used to update the state of the platform, wherein the nonlinear state estimation technique comprises using a nonlinear measurement model for radar measurements, wherein integrating the motion sensor data and the radar measurements in the nonlinear state estimation technique is tightly-coupled, wherein the generating comprises [see at least Ahmed [0069] "The integrated navigation solution may be generated using a nonlinear state estimation technique. Further, the nonlinear state estimation technique is configured to use a nonlinear measurement model as noted above. Consequently, the integration navigation solution from the updated nonlinear state estimation technique may then be provided in 308."; [0071] "A state estimation technique, such as a filter, includes a prediction phase and an update phase (which may also be termed a measurement update phase). A state estimation technique also uses a system model and measurement model(s) based on what measurements are used. The system model is used in the prediction phase, and the measurement model(s) is/are used in the update phase."]:
using the obtained motion sensor data in the nonlinear state estimation technique [see at least Ahmed [0071] "...the system model or the state transition model used is the motion model itself, which in case of inertial navigation is a nonlinear model, this model is a total-state model since the estimated state is the state of the navigation device itself...."]; and
integrating the radar measurements directly by updating the nonlinear state estimation technique using the nonlinear measurement models and the built map [see at least Ahmed [0072] "...suitable methods involve obtaining motion sensor data from a sensor assembly of the device, obtaining radar measurements for the platform, obtaining map information for an environment encompassing the platform, generating an integrated navigation solution based at least in part on the obtained motion sensor data using a nonlinear state estimation technique, wherein the nonlinear state estimation technique comprises using a nonlinear measurement model for radar measurements. Generating the integrated navigation solution may include using the obtained motion sensor data in the nonlinear state estimation technique and integrating the radar measurements directly by updating the nonlinear state estimation technique using the nonlinear measurement models and the map information...."], and
wherein the improved integrated navigation solution output is used to … build an improved map [see at least Ahmed [0075] "Depending on the embodiment, the nonlinear state estimation technique may be at least one of:...When the method uses an error-state system model, providing the integrated navigation solution may involve correcting an inertial mechanization output with the updated nonlinear state estimation technique.]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … wherein the output of the integrated navigation solution is improved based at least in part on the received motion sensor data using a nonlinear state estimation technique, wherein a prediction phase involving a system model is used to propagate predictions about a state of the platform and an update phase involving at least one measurement model relating measurements to the state is used to update the state of the platform, wherein the nonlinear state estimation technique comprises using a nonlinear measurement model for radar measurements, wherein integrating the motion sensor data and the radar measurements in the nonlinear state estimation technique is tightly-coupled, wherein the generating comprises: i) using the obtained motion sensor data in the nonlinear state estimation technique; and ii) integrating the radar measurements directly by updating the nonlinear state estimation technique using the nonlinear measurement models and the built map, and wherein the improved integrated navigation solution output is used to … build an improved map as disclosed in Ahmed with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved map information using navigation solutions determined by integrating radar measurements with IMU-based systems. [See at least Ahmed [0005].]
As per claim 20, the combination of Breed, Lessmann, and Ahmed, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … wherein the measurement model comprises at least one of: i) a radar range-based model based at least in part on a probability distribution of measured ranges using an estimated state of the platform and the built map; ii) a radar nearest object likelihood model based at least in part on a probability distribution of distance to an object detected using the radar measurements, an estimated state of the platform and a nearest object identification from the built map; iii) a radar map matching model based at least in part on a probability distribution derived by correlating a global map derived from the built map to the map built using the projected radar measurements and the integrated navigation solution; and iv) a radar closed-form model based at least in part on a relation between the integrated navigation solution and ranges to objects from the built map. However, Ahmed teaches these limitations [see at least Ahmed [0142] "...details regarding the design of a state estimator to integrate the radar data and the motion sensor data are discussed. As noted above, four exemplary radar measurement models include a range-based model, a NOL model, a radar map matching model and a closed-form model."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … wherein the measurement model comprises at least one of: i) a radar range-based model based at least in part on a probability distribution of measured ranges using an estimated state of the platform and the built map; ii) a radar nearest object likelihood model based at least in part on a probability distribution of distance to an object detected using the radar measurements, an estimated state of the platform and a nearest object identification from the built map; iii) a radar map matching model based at least in part on a probability distribution derived by correlating a global map derived from the built map to the map built using the projected radar measurements and the integrated navigation solution; and iv) a radar closed-form model based at least in part on a relation between the integrated navigation solution and ranges to objects from the built map as disclosed in Ahmed with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved map information using navigation solutions determined by integrating radar measurements with IMU-based systems. [See at least Ahmed [0005].]
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, in view of Lessmann, and Magnusson, et al. (Publication US 2020/0139976 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Magnusson”.)
As per claim 16, the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Breed discloses … updating … a subdivision of the area of the map, using the projected radar measurements [See at least Breed [0023] "...the present inventions make use of ...radar … to derive the location and orientation of the vehicle for use in a system for obtaining images for later processing to create maps… ."]
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … wherein building the map comprises at least one of assigning a new probability determination to a subdivision of the area of the map and updating an existing probability determination for a subdivision of the area of the map, using … radar measurements. However, Magnusson teaches this limitation [see at least Magnusson [0035] "Each cell 320 may be assigned a probability for each of a number of different road surface parameters."; {use radar} [0057] "The central processing arrangement 120 may further be arranged to update this probability based on a road surface parameter specific updating model that is preferably adapted to the expected development over time of the probability for the specific road surface parameter until further road surface data is received for the cell 320..."; [0083] "…values derived from any type of external sensor such as radar… ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … wherein building the map comprises at least one of assigning a new probability determination to a subdivision of the area of the map and updating an existing probability determination for a subdivision of the area of the map, using … radar measurements as disclosed in Magnusson with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved road condition monitoring. [See at least Magnusson [0009].]
As per claim 17, the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … further comprising determining an occupancy probability for a subdivision of the area of the map. However, Magnusson teaches this limitation [see at least Magnusson [0005] "US20120053755 describes a method of calculating the occupancy probability for a road surface using occupancy grid maps."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … further comprising determining an occupancy probability for a subdivision of the area of the map as disclosed in Magnusson with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved road condition monitoring. [See at least Magnusson [0009].]
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed, in view of Lessmann, and Anastassov (Publication US 2022/0163347 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Anastassov”.)
As per claim 18, the combination of Breed and Lessmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Breed and Lessmann fails to disclose … further comprising cleaning the map based at least in part on trajectories passing through a subdivision of the area of the map. However, Anastassov teaches this limitation [see at least Anastassov [0046] "The above steps can be subject to filtering/cleaning processes to improve accuracy, such as identifying and excluding special areas and/or special events. … In another embodiment, the system 100 can use additional sensor data to detect special areas of the road network or neighboring infrastructure, like work areas, loading/unloading zones, mine sites, construction areas, warehousing areas, parking areas, etc."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Breed and Lessmann to use … further comprising cleaning the map based at least in part on trajectories passing through a subdivision of the area of the map as disclosed in Anastassov with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving accuracy. [See at least Anastassov [0046].]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights