DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed November 1st, 2025. Claims 1, 3, and 5-9 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 .
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, 3, and 5-8 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; 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 from outside the vehicle, and the internal state is the motion state of the vehicle detected from inside 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 from outside the vehicle, and the internal state is the motion state of the vehicle detected from inside 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 3 and 5-8 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 claims 3 and 5, claims 3 and 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 imaging device which can be practically performed in the human mind as well as add the additional element of wherein the external state detector is an imaging device disposed outside of the vehicle 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”.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the same judicial exception of claim 1 and further add mental step and mathematical calculation of wherein the azimuth angle calculator calculates the internal azimuth angle of the vehicle using a yaw rate acquired by the yaw rate sensor which can be practically performed in the human mind as well as add the additional element of wherein the internal state is detected by an internal state detector, the internal state detector being a yaw rate sensor provided in the vehicle 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 internal state of the vehicle is performed by a generic yaw rate sensor. 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”.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the same judicial exception of claim 1 but is in the statutory category of system and recites the additional elements of [a]n azimuth angle acquisition system for a self-propellable vehicle, comprising: an external state detector disposed outside of the vehicle to detect a motion state of the vehicle from the outside the vehicle; an internal state detector mounted on the vehicle to detect the motion state of the vehicle from inside the vehicle which do 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 internal state and external state of the vehicle is performed by a generic external state detector and internal state detector. 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, 3, and 5-8 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, and 7-9 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, 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 from outside the vehicle, and the internal state is the motion state of the vehicle detected from inside 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); 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 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), 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 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 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 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 7, Liu 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 internal state is detected by an internal state detector, the internal state detector being a yaw rate sensor provided in the vehicle, wherein the processor calculates the internal azimuth angle of the vehicle using a yaw rate acquired by the yaw rate sensor (Liu: Para. 0009, teaching that the sensors for calculating the pose of the vehicle can include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor).
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 outside of the vehicle to detect a motion state of the vehicle from outside the vehicle; an internal state detector mounted on the vehicle to detect the motion state of the vehicle from inside 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); 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 with using the calculated external azimuth angle and the 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 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 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 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 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 from outside the vehicle and the internal state the motion state of the vehicle detected from inside of 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); 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 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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Song et al. (US Pub. No. 20170347066 A1), herein after Song.
Regarding claim 3, Liu 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 increases the priority level of the external azimuth angle and determines the vehicle 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).
They are silent to the increase of the weight occurs when the motion state of the vehicle is in a stopped 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. 0070, 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 Kim 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Clayton et al. (US Pub. No. 20180143003 A1), herein after Clayton.
Regarding claim 6, Liu and Kim remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are silent to [t]he azimuth angle acquisition apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the external state detector is an imaging device disposed outside of the vehicle, wherein the processor calculates the external azimuth angle of the vehicle using an image captured by the imaging device.
In a similar field, Clayton teaches [t]he azimuth angle acquisition apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the external state detector is an imaging device disposed outside of the vehicle, wherein the processor calculates the external azimuth angle of the vehicle using an image captured by the imaging device (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 in view of Kim with 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 1st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed November 1st, 2025 with respects to the 101 rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see pages 8-9, filed November 1st, 2025) that the amendments to independent claims 1 and 8 of having the invention transmit the determined vehicle azimuth angle to a travel control device and the travel control device controls the vehicle accordingly provides a practical integration of the identified judicial exceptions. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the language of having the result of the identified mental process and mathematical calculations does not integrate the invention into a practical application as the BRI of the claimed invention has a device separate from the invention performing the control step or that the invention merely stops at transmitting of the angle to a device that can control the vehicle without an active step of controlling the vehicle. Therefore, while the intended result of the invention (the control of the vehicle to self-propel) could be considered practical, the control of the vehicle has not been integrated into the methods performed by independent claims 1 and 8. Independent claim 9, however, does integrate the control step into the method as it does have the control being performed in the steps of the invention and the control step is performed by the same machine that performed the identified judicial exceptions.
Applicant’s amendments, filed November 1st, 2025, with respect to the 101 rejection of claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed November 1st, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, and 7-9 under 102(a)(1) in view of Liu have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 103 in view of Liu in further view of Kim.
Applicant contends (see page 9 line 17 through page 10 line 6, filed November 1st, 2025) that Liu is deficient in teaching the external state detector as the GNSS signals recited in Liu are being received by an internal detector rather than an external detector. The examiner respectfully does not disagree. The examiner notes, however, that Liu goes on to further state that, alternatively to the GNSS signals, a position of the vehicle can be determined based on navigation signals received from various sources such as navigation beacons, aviation navigation facilities, cellular network base stations (Para. 0046 and 0047) which would include information on the position of the vehicle as detected by external sensors. This is especially evident in the event that the vehicle is an aerial vehicle as air traffic control towers (the aviation navigation facilities of Liu) would be in communication with the aerial vehicle and would transmit the position of the aerial vehicle that the air traffic control tower is detecting.
Applicant contends (see page 10 line 9 through page 11 line 4, filed November 1st, 2025) that Liu does not disclose that the weights of the sensors are not adjusted based on the motion state of the vehicle and rather that the weights are based on historical performance patterns. 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. Liu even gives examples of adverse events in paragraph 0073 and 0083 of the vehicle currently being stuck in a location or it is in a collision with something, both of which would fall under the BRI of a “motion state” which is defined in applicant’s specification in page 6 paragraph 0022 lines 15-18 as: “a driving state of the vehicle such that the vehicle is in a stop state, a running state, an acceleration state, a deceleration state, a straight-ahead state, or a turning state”.
Applicant contends (see page 11 lines 7-22, filed November 1st, 2025) that the prior art of Kim is silent to the priority levels claimed as Kim merely relates to collision prediction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner notes that, in this case, the prior art of Liu is being used to teach that the weights of the sensors are being adjusted dynamically based on the current pose and condition of the vehicle (Liu: Para. 0062, 0066, 0073, 0077, and 0078) while Kim teaches 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). Therefore, the combination of Liu in view of Kim is sufficient for teaching that the pose estimations of Liu can also be adjusted on the basis of whether the vehicle is turning
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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