DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed May 27th, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the probability of the external state detector" in lines 4-5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim requires comparing the probability to a threshold value. It is unclear in the claim what the probability is and how comparing it to a threshold leads to changing the internal azimuth angle or increasing its priority. For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that the probability is the probability of the external state detector being accurate or reliable.
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1:
The claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of product.
Step 2a Prong 1:
The product of claim 1 is performing a mental process and mathematical calculations. The mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 1 merely consists of calculate an external azimuth angle using the acquired external state and calculate an internal azimuth angle using the acquired internal state; and determine a vehicle azimuth angle using the calculated external azimuth angle and the calculated internal azimuth angle by changing a priority level of the external azimuth angle and a priority level of the internal azimuth angle according to the motion state of the vehicle and a state of an external state detector that detects the external state; increase the priority level of the external azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state; and increase the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state which under its BRI consists of calculating the angle an object is facing in relation to some point and adjusting the calculations based on the condition of the object and the sensors used to determine the object’s pose. For example, most mechanical engineering students can use the motion and orientation of an object to calculate where it will be going and what its orientation will be after a set amount of time.
Step 2a Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional element of [a]n azimuth angle acquisition apparatus for a self-propellable vehicle, comprising: a processor and wherein the vehicle azimuth angle is used to self-propel the vehicle which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely defining the field of use of the claimed mental process and mathematical calculations. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely stating that the judicial exception is being performed for the sake of propelling a vehicle forward.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of acquire an external state and an internal state, wherein the external state is a motion state of the vehicle detected externally from the vehicle, by an external state detector including at least one of a camera and a LiDAR disposed externally of the vehicle, and the internal state is the motion state of the vehicle detected from inside the vehicle by a yaw rate sensor provided in the vehicle which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely insignificant pre-solution activity. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely a step of gathering data.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the determined vehicle azimuth angle to a travel control device configured to control at least one actuator of the vehicle based on the determined vehicle azimuth angle to self-propel the vehicle which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely instructing the processor to apply the judicial exception by transmitting the determined vehicle azimuth angle. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely an instruction to apply an exception.
Step 2b:
The additional element of [a]n azimuth angle acquisition apparatus for a self-propellable vehicle, comprising: a processor and wherein the vehicle azimuth angle is used to self-propel the vehicle, which was considered an indication of field of use in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is merely indicating the field of use of the claimed judicial exception. For example, the MPEP provides that “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)”. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(iv) “Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
The additional element of acquire an external state and an internal state, wherein the external state is a motion state of the vehicle detected externally from the vehicle, by an external state detector including at least one of a camera and a LiDAR disposed externally of the vehicle, and the internal state is the motion state of the vehicle detected from inside the vehicle by a yaw rate sensor provided in the vehicle, which was considered insignificant pre-solution activity in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is an insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering data. For example, the MPEP provides that “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978)”. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(i) “Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989)”.
The additional element of wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the determined vehicle azimuth angle to a travel control device configured to control at least one actuator of the vehicle based on the determined vehicle azimuth angle to self-propel the vehicle, which was considered mere instructions to perform an exception in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity for computers. For example, the MPEP provides that “If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility”. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Claims 5 and 6 fall under the same judicial exceptions of claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the same judicial exception of claim 1 and further add mental steps and mathematical calculations which can be practically performed in the human mind.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the same judicial exception of claim 1 and further add mental step and mathematical calculation of wherein the azimuth angle calculator calculates the external azimuth angle of the vehicle using an image captured by the camera which can be practically performed in the human mind as well as add the additional element of wherein the external state detector includes a camera which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely stating that the pre-solution activity of gathering data of the external state of the vehicle is performed by a generic imaging device. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(III) “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more”.
Given the above analysis, examiner has determined that claims 1, 5, and 6 are not eligible subject matter under 101 and are thus rejected.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Liu et al. (US Pub. No. 20200097006 A1), herein after Liu, in further view of previously cited of record Clayton et al. (US Pub. No. 20180143003 A1), herein after Clayton, in further view of previously cited of record Song et al. (US Pub. No. 20170347066 A1), herein after Song, and further in view of previously cited of record Kim; NamGyun (US Pub. No. 20200139963 A1), herein after Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches [a]n azimuth angle acquisition apparatus for a self-propellable vehicle, comprising: a processor configured to (Liu: Para. 0024 and 0025, teaching a vehicle system that determines the pose of the vehicle which includes the position and orientation of the vehicle): acquire an external state and an internal state, wherein the external state is a motion state of the vehicle detected externally from the vehicle, by an external state detector… disposed externally of the vehicle, and the internal state is the motion state of the vehicle detected from inside the vehicle by a yaw rate sensor provided in the vehicle (Liu: Para. 0046 and 0047, teaching that the vehicle can receive navigation signals from various sources such as navigation beacons, aviation navigation facilities, cellular network base stations, etc. which are then used to determine the position of the vehicle; and Para. 0070, teaching that the pose of the vehicle can be acquired from IMU sensors; and Para. 0009, teaching that the sensors for calculating the pose of the vehicle can include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor); calculate an external azimuth angle using the acquired external state and calculate an internal azimuth angle using the acquired internal state (Liu: Para. 0071, teaching that raw sensor data is collected to process for the sake of determining the position and orientation of the vehicle; and Para. 0072, teaching that the position and orientation can be calculated by processing data from multiple sources combined together); determine a vehicle azimuth angle using the calculated external azimuth angle and the calculated internal azimuth angle (Liu: Para. 0041, teaching that the pose calculated is used for navigational purposes; and Para. 0078, teaching that the pose is estimated by weighing the raw data from multiple sensors and processing the sensor data together) by changing a priority level of the external azimuth angle and a priority level of the internal azimuth angle (Liu: Para. 0062 and 0066, teaching that the pose of the vehicle can be dynamically calculated based on the state of the vehicle and its location by adjusting the weight given to each sensor based on how accurate it is; and Para. 0077 and 0078, teaching that if the pose of the vehicle that is calculated differs from the current pose of the vehicle, then an adverse event is detected and the weights used to calculate the pose are updated as part of the semantic information of the vehicle) according to the motion state of the vehicle and a state of the external state detector (Liu: Para. 0073, teaching that the adverse event can include a pose of the vehicle or an indication that a sensor has diminished performance), wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the determined vehicle azimuth angle to a travel control device configured to control at least one actuator of the vehicle based on the determined vehicle azimuth angle to self-propel the vehicle (Liu: Para. 0046, teaching that the data on the pose of the vehicle is utilized to determine the course of the vehicle and maneuver the vehicle accordingly).
Liu is silent to the external state detector includes at least one of a camera and a LiDAR disposed externally of the vehicle; increase the priority level of the external azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state; and increase the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state.
In a similar field, Clayton teaches an external state detector including at least one of a camera and a LiDAR disposed externally of the vehicle (Clayton: Para. 0029, teaching that the position and orientation of a vehicle can be calculated from images acquired from stationary cameras exterior to the vehicle) for the benefit of improving estimation of a vehicle’s position and orientation in an environment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the sensors used to collect data used for calculating the position and orientation from Liu to utilize cameras installed in the environment exterior to the vehicle, as taught by Clayton, for the benefit of improving estimation of a vehicle’s position and orientation in an environment.
Liu in view of Clayton are silent to increase the priority level of the external azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state; and increase the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state.
In a similar field, Song teaches calculating the orientation of a vehicle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state (Song: Para. 0071, teaching that the orientation of a vehicle is calculated specifically on the basis that it is in a stopped state) for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the weights for the sensor data used to calculate the position and orientation of a vehicle from Liu in view of Clayton to also be affected by the vehicle being in a stopped state, as taught by Song, for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
Liu in view of Clayton in further view of Song are silent to increase the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state.
In a similar field, Kim teaches calculating the orientation of a vehicle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state (Kim: Para. 0075, teaching that the orientation of a vehicle is calculated based on the vehicle being in a turning state) for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the weights for the sensor data used to calculate the position and orientation of a vehicle from Liu in view of Clayton in further view of Song to also be weighed by the vehicle being in a turning state, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
Regarding claim 5, Liu, Clayton, Song, and Kim remain as applied as in claim 1, and Liu goes on to further teach [t]he azimuth angle acquisition apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor corrects the internal azimuth angle using the external azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a straight-ahead state and the probability of the external state detector is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, and increases the priority level of the internal azimuth angle and determines the vehicle azimuth angle when the probability of the external state detector is less than the predetermined threshold value (Liu: Para. 0095 and 0096, teaching that the system calculates whether a current estimated pose satisfies or exceeds a threshold for the various sensors and adjusting the weight of the data from the sensors accordingly).
Regarding claim 6, Liu Clayton, Song, and Kim remain as applied as in claim 1, and Clayton goes on to further teach [t]he azimuth angle acquisition apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the external state detector includes a camera, and wherein the processor calculates the external azimuth angle of the vehicle using an image captured by the camera (Clayton: Para. 0029, teaching that the position and orientation of a vehicle can be calculated from images acquired from stationary cameras exterior to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches [a]n azimuth angle acquisition system for a self-propellable vehicle, comprising (Liu: Para. 0024 and 0025, teaching a vehicle system that determines the pose of the vehicle which includes the position and orientation of the vehicle): an external state detector disposed externally of the vehicle to detect a motion state of the vehicle externally from the vehicle; an internal state detector mounted on the vehicle to detect the motion state of the vehicle from inside the vehicle, the internal state detector being a yaw rate sensor (Liu: Para. 0046 and 0047, teaching that the vehicle can receive navigation signals from various sources such as navigation beacons, aviation navigation facilities, cellular network base stations, etc. which are then used to determine the position of the vehicle; and Para. 0070, teaching that the pose of the vehicle can be acquired from IMU sensors; and Para. 0009, teaching that the sensors for calculating the pose of the vehicle can include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor); an azimuth angle acquisition apparatus, the azimuth angle acquisition apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: calculate an external azimuth angle using an external state of the vehicle and an internal azimuth angle using an internal state of the vehicle, wherein the external state is the motion state of the vehicle detected by the external state detector, and the internal state is the motion state of the vehicle detected by the internal state detector (Liu: Para. 0071, teaching that raw sensor data is collected to process for the sake of determining the position and orientation of the vehicle; and Para. 0072, teaching that the position and orientation can be calculated by processing data from multiple sources combined together); determine a vehicle azimuth angle using the calculated external azimuth angle and the calculated internal azimuth angle, wherein the vehicle azimuth angle is used to self-propel the vehicle (Liu: Para. 0041, teaching that the pose calculated is used for navigational purposes; and Para. 0078, teaching that the pose is estimated by weighing the raw data from multiple sensors and processing the sensor data together) by changing a priority level of the external azimuth angle and a priority level of the internal azimuth angle (Liu: Para. 0062 and 0066, teaching that the pose of the vehicle can be dynamically calculated based on the state of the vehicle and its location by adjusting the weight given to each sensor based on how accurate it is; and Para. 0077 and 0078, teaching that if the pose of the vehicle that is calculated differs from the current pose of the vehicle, then an adverse event is detected and the weights used to calculate the pose are updated as part of the semantic information of the vehicle) according to the motion state of the vehicle and a state of the external state detector that detects the external state (Liu: Para. 0073, teaching that the adverse event can include a pose of the vehicle or an indication that a sensor has diminished performance); and a travel control device configured to receive the determined vehicle azimuth angle from the processor and control at least one actuator of the vehicle based on the determined vehicle azimuth angle to self-propel the vehicle (Liu: Para. 0046, teaching that the data on the pose of the vehicle is utilized to determine the course of the vehicle and maneuver the vehicle accordingly).
Liu is silent to the external state detector includes at least one of a camera and a LiDAR; increase the priority level of the external azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state, and increase the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state.
In a similar field, Clayton teaches an external state detector including at least one of a camera and a LiDAR disposed externally of the vehicle to detect a motion state of the vehicle externally from the vehicle (Clayton: Para. 0029, teaching that the position and orientation of a vehicle can be calculated from images acquired from stationary cameras exterior to the vehicle) for the benefit of improving estimation of a vehicle’s position and orientation in an environment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the sensors used to collect data used for calculating the position and orientation from Liu to utilize cameras installed in the environment exterior to the vehicle, as taught by Clayton, for the benefit of improving estimation of a vehicle’s position and orientation in an environment.
Liu in view of Clayton are silent to increase the priority level of the external azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state, and increase the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state.
In a similar field, Song teaches calculating the orientation of a vehicle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state (Song: Para. 0071, teaching that the orientation of a vehicle is calculated specifically on the basis that it is in a stopped state) for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the weights for the sensor data used to calculate the position and orientation of a vehicle from Liu in view of Clayton to also be affected by the vehicle being in a stopped state, as taught by Song, for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
Liu in view of Clayton in further view of Song are silent to increase the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state.
In a similar field, Kim teaches calculating the orientation of a vehicle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state (Kim: Para. 0075, teaching that the orientation of a vehicle is calculated based on the vehicle being in a turning state) for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the weights for the sensor data used to calculate the position and orientation of a vehicle from Liu in view of Clayton in further view of Song to also be weighed by the vehicle being in a turning state, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches [a] method of acquiring an azimuth angle of a self-propellable vehicle, comprising (Liu: Para. 0024 and 0025, teaching a vehicle system that determines the pose of the vehicle which includes the position and orientation of the vehicle): acquiring an external state and an internal state, wherein the external state is a motion state of the vehicle detected externally from the vehicle by an external state detector… disposed externally of the vehicle, and the internal state is the motion state of the vehicle detected from inside of the vehicle by a yaw rate sensor provided in the vehicle (Liu: Para. 0046 and 0047, teaching that the vehicle can receive navigation signals from various sources such as navigation beacons, aviation navigation facilities, cellular network base stations, etc. which are then used to determine the position of the vehicle; and Para. 0070, teaching that the pose of the vehicle can be acquired from IMU sensors; and Para. 0009, teaching that the sensors for calculating the pose of the vehicle can include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor); calculating an external azimuth angle using the acquired external state, and an internal azimuth angle using the acquired internal state (Liu: Para. 0071, teaching that raw sensor data is collected to process for the sake of determining the position and orientation of the vehicle; and Para. 0072, teaching that the position and orientation can be calculated by processing data from multiple sources combined together); and determining a vehicle azimuth angle using the calculated external azimuth angle and the internal azimuth angle (Liu: Para. 0041, teaching that the pose calculated is used for navigational purposes; and Para. 0078, teaching that the pose is estimated by weighing the raw data from multiple sensors and processing the sensor data together) by changing a priority level of the external azimuth angle and a priority level of the internal azimuth angle (Liu: Para. 0062 and 0066, teaching that the pose of the vehicle can be dynamically calculated based on the state of the vehicle and its location by adjusting the weight given to each sensor based on how accurate it is; and Para. 0077 and 0078, teaching that if the pose of the vehicle that is calculated differs from the current pose of the vehicle, then an adverse event is detected and the weights used to calculate the pose are updated as part of the semantic information of the vehicle) according to the motion state of the vehicle and a state of an external state detector that detects the external state (Liu: Para. 0073, teaching that the adverse event can include a pose of the vehicle or an indication that a sensor has diminished performance); and controlling at least one actuator of the vehicle based on the determined vehicle azimuth angle to self-propel the vehicle (Liu: Para. 0041, teaching that the pose calculated is used for navigational purposes; and Para. 0078, teaching that the pose is estimated by weighing the raw data from multiple sensors and processing the sensor data together).
Liu is silent to the external state detector includes at least one of a camera and a LiDAR disposed externally of the vehicle; increasing the priority level of the external azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state; and increasing the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state.
In a similar field, Clayton teaches an external state detector including at least one of a camera and a LiDAR disposed externally of the vehicle (Clayton: Para. 0029, teaching that the position and orientation of a vehicle can be calculated from images acquired from stationary cameras exterior to the vehicle) for the benefit of improving estimation of a vehicle’s position and orientation in an environment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the sensors used to collect data used for calculating the position and orientation from Liu to utilize cameras installed in the environment exterior to the vehicle, as taught by Clayton, for the benefit of improving estimation of a vehicle’s position and orientation in an environment.
Liu in view of Clayton are silent to increasing the priority level of the external azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state; and increasing the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state.
In a similar field, Song teaches calculating the orientation of a vehicle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state (Song: Para. 0071, teaching that the orientation of a vehicle is calculated specifically on the basis that it is in a stopped state) for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the weights for the sensor data used to calculate the position and orientation of a vehicle from Liu in view of Clayton to also be affected by the vehicle being in a stopped state, as taught by Song, for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
Liu in view of Clayton in further view of Song are silent to increasing the priority level of the internal azimuth angle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state.
In a similar field, Kim teaches calculating the orientation of a vehicle when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state (Kim: Para. 0075, teaching that the orientation of a vehicle is calculated based on the vehicle being in a turning state) for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the weights for the sensor data used to calculate the position and orientation of a vehicle from Liu in view of Clayton in further view of Song to also be weighed by the vehicle being in a turning state, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of improved awareness of a vehicle’s position and orientation in relation to other objects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed May 27th, 2026 with respects to the 101 rejections of claims 1, 5, and 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 6 line 12 through page 7 line 17, filed May 27th, 2026) that the limitation of the processor is further configured to transmit the determined vehicle azimuth angle to a travel control device configured to control at least one actuator of the vehicle based on the determined vehicle azimuth angle to self-propel the vehicle as recited in independent claim 1 is sufficient for providing a practical application of the identified abstract idea as the Supreme Court decision of Diamond v. Diehr “found patent-eligible a process in which a computer recalculated cure time using a mathematical equation and then signaled a separate device to open the mold” which is similar to the transmitting performed by the claimed invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claimed language of Diehr that the Supreme Court reviewed was “opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates completion of curing” and in the decision for Diamond v. Diehr the court noted in page 450 U.S. 210 n.2/32 that if the claims of Diehr were drafted to recite “‘c. providing output signals from said computer’” then the lower courts would likely have found the claim to be drawn to unpatentable subject matter. As the at issue limitation of applicant’s claim recites a step of transmitting data to a travel control device and does not claim that the control occurs during the process of the invention, the examiner must follow the decision of Diamond v. Diehr and maintain the 101 rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6.
Applicant contends (see page 7 lines 12-17, filed May 27th, 2026) that the previous Office Action requires the “processor itself directly operates the actuator” to become 101 eligible. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that if the applicant wishes to make claim 1 eligible under 101 using a control limitation then the examiner is merely stating that having the steps of the invention end with transmitting the determined vehicle azimuth angle is not sufficient to show a practical application as no control is actively performed in the claim based on the identified mental process.
Applicant contends (see page 7 line 18 through page 8 line 7, filed May 27th, 2026) that the amended external and internal state detectors bring the case out of the abstract given that they are grounded in physical sensors. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the external state detector and the internal state detectors are merely being used as part of insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering which do not bring the invention out of the abstract as merely selecting the source of the data to be manipulated is not sufficient for a showing of significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g) for examples where the court has found limitations where selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated are found to be insignificant extra-solution activities.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed May 27th, 2026, with respect to the 101 rejection of claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed May 27th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5, 8, and 9 under 103 in view of Liu in further view of Kim have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 103 in view of Liu in view of Clayton in view of Song in further view of Kim for claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
Applicant contends (see page 10 line 23 through page 13 line 5, filed May 27th, 2026) that Liu is deficient in teaching calculating an external azimuth angle from a sensor that is external to the vehicle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Liu teaches in at least paragraph 0061 that “[t]he robotic device may also use a GNSS receiver to obtain global position information to supplement or facilitate acquisition of pose information” while paragraph 0024 defines pose to be “the position and orientation of a robotic device within the local environment. In a configuration in which a robotic device travels in two dimensions, such as along the surface of a floor, the pose of the robotic device may be specified by a two-dimensional position (x,y) and a heading (θ)”. As such, Liu is sufficient in teaching an external sensor that calculates the azimuth angle (orientation such as heading).
Applicant contends (see page 11 line 8 through page 12 line 14, filed May 27th, 2026) that the combination of Liu in view of Clayton is deficient in teaching the external state detector being a camera or LiDAR disposed externally from the vehicle as the cameras of Clayton are used to track the position and orientation of freight instead of vehicles. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the determination of position and orientation of freight in Clayton is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art of Clayton teaches determining the position and orientation of freight while it is being carried by vehicles such as forklifts. As the freight will have their position and orientation directly influenced by the position and orientation of the vehicle that is carried by the freight, the prior art of Clayton also is detecting and monitoring the position and orientation of the vehicle. In particular, Clayton describes how the freight is tracked by defining a dimension box based on data regarding the vehicle and the freight in paragraph 0019 “In some examples disclosed herein, a freight mover, such as a forklift, moves the freight along the unconstrained path in the venue through a dimensioning zone past the ranging and tracking systems… The composite point cloud includes data points from the freight and from the freight mover, and the computing device is operative for extracting the data points from the freight mover from the composite point cloud, for enclosing the extracted composite point cloud with a bounding box having dimensions, and for dimensioning the moving freight from the dimensions of the bounding box”. As such, one ordinarily skilled in the art would be able to extract the position and orientation of the vehicle carrying the freight using the invention of Clayton.
Applicant contends (see page 12 line 17 through page 13, filed May 27th, 2026) that Liu in view of Kim is deficient in teaching that the priority of the internal azimuth angle is increased when the motion state of the vehicle is in a turning state as the prior art of Liu does not contemplate adjusting the sensor weights in response to the vehicle being in a turning state and the prior art of Kim merely is aware if the vehicle is turning but is deficient in teaching adjusting the weight given to any sensors in response to the vehicle being in a turning state. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the adjustment of the weights of Liu are based on the current motion state of the vehicle in at least paragraphs 0077 and 0078 which teach that if the predicted pose (motion state) of the vehicle differs from the current pose of the vehicle, then the system treats the vehicle as being in an “adverse event” and adjusts the pose estimation of the vehicle accordingly. The prior art of Kim is then brought in to teach adjusting the calculations of the pose of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle is turning and how large the turning radius and steering angle is (Kim: Para. 0075) which when combined with the prior art of Liu teaches a system that adjusts the weight given to an internal sensor for detecting the orientation (azimuth angle) based on whether the vehicle is actively turning.
Applicant contends (see page 12 line 17 through page 14, filed May 27th, 2026) that Liu in view of Kim is deficient in teaching that the priority of the external azimuth angle is increased when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped state as required by the amended claims. The examiner respectfully agrees. The examiner notes that while Liu does not explicitly teach that the adjustment of the weights are done in response to the vehicle being in a stopped state, Liu does teach that the adjustment of the weights of Liu are based on the current motion state of the vehicle in at least paragraphs 0077 and 0078 which teach that if the predicted pose (motion state) of the vehicle differs from the current pose of the vehicle, then the system treats the vehicle as being in an “adverse event” and adjusts the pose estimation of the vehicle accordingly. Liu even gives examples of adverse events in paragraph 0073 and 0083 of the vehicle currently being stuck in a location or experiencing a collision. This gives grounds for combining with the prior art of Song in the updated 103 rejection above as Song teaches in paragraph 0071 determining the orientation of the vehicle based on the vehicle being in a stopped state.
Applicant contends (see page 15, filed May 27th, 2026) that the prior art of Liu is deficient in teaching claim 5 as the claim requires conditional correction framework based on the probability of the external state detector in relation to a threshold. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the limitation of “the probability of the external state detector” is not properly defined in the claims which has led to a 112(b) rejection as noted above. The examiner further notes, however, that the applicant’s specification in pages 12-14 paragraph 0032 does appear to give several definitions of what the probability could be including a probability that the external state detector is accurate and the threshold is a threshold accuracy. This is relevant to the prior art of Liu which teaches in paragraph 0095 “In determination block 606, the processor may determine whether the difference between a pose indicated by the obtained processed measurements and the current estimated pose calculated through localization satisfies or exceeds a threshold. In some embodiments, a different threshold may be configured for each sensor by the robotic device, and may depend on the acuity/capabilities of the various sensors” and paragraph 0096 further adds that the threshold may be used to detect an adverse event with the sensors and previously cited paragraph 0077 teaches that adverse events are used to determine the priority level of the data from these sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights